Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study · Business and Information Needs Study Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions Page v Recommendation 1: Government

Environmental Monitoring:

Business and Information Needs Study

prepared for

Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee Province of British Columbia

by

Daryl Brown, Daryl Brown Associates Inc. &

John Dick, Sustainable Visions

Draft #2.1 March 30, 2001

Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study

Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................III

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ VI

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

1.1. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1 1.2. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................... 1 1.3. METHODS............................................................................................................. 3 1.4. REPORT ORGANIZATION........................................................................................ 3

2. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING: AN OVERVIEW ............................................................. 5

2.1. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2. MONITORING AND STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING .................................................. 5 2.3. INDICATORS AND INDICES...................................................................................... 6 2.4. THE PRESSURE-STATE-IMPACT-RESPONSE FRAMEWORK FOR THE

SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ........................................................ 8 2.5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH, INVENTORY AND MONITORING ............... 9 2.6. PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING .................................................... 10 2.7. LINKING ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 10

3. THE LEGISLATIVE, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA............................................................................. 13

3.1. “BUSINESS DRIVERS” FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.................................... 13 3.2. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING .................................... 14

4. THE GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA................ 17

4.1. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ..................................................... 17 4.2. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT MONITORING .......................................................... 20 4.3. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT MONITORING ................................................................. 26 4.4. LAND TENURE AND USE ...................................................................................... 31 4.5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS OF MONITORING INITIATIVES .............................. 32

5. PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES THAT INTERPRET AND REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFORMATION......................................................................................... 35

5.1. NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS THAT PROVINCIAL AGENCIES WANT TO TRACK................................................................................ 38

5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PRIORITIES......................................................... 40 5.3. OVERLAPPING INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES......................................................... 45

Page ii



6. KEY ISSUES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 47

6.1. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES................................................................................... 47 6.2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 49

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ 53

APPENDIX 2: STUDY CONTACTS................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX 3: PROVINCIAL TRENDS INTERPRETATION / EFFECTIVENESS REPORTING INITIATIVES........................................................................... 57

APPENDIX 4: CURRENT AND PROPOSED MONITORING (TIME-SERIES) INFORMATION FOR TRENDS INTERPRETATION & EFFECTIVENESS REPORTING INITIATIVES OF PROVINCIAL AGENCIES ................................. 65

Tables

Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship ...................................8

Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using the PSIR Framework .......................................................................................................10

Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC...........................................15

Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting Initiatives...............36

Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information..........38

Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators ..........................................................................39

Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme................................................41

Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order.............42

Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives ............................................................................43

Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest Demand .............................44



Page iii

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

Study Background and Purpose

BC’s Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee (LIICC) commissioned this study to obtain a current picture of provincial environmental monitoring business and information needs, as a basis for developing a “corporate environmental baseline”, which is essentially a system for advising about and distributing environmental information that is needed for environmental management purposes.

Study findings are based primarily on a series of interviews that the consultants held with provincial agency personnel who are involved in delivering environmental monitoring and inventory programs (i.e., data providers); and those who are involved in activities to interpret environmental monitoring information in support of program requirements and for environmental trends / effectiveness assessment purposes (i.e., data users). Various agencies’ documentation was also reviewed to identify specific environmental indicators that agencies want to track over time, and the particular environmental information that is needed to support these efforts.

Terminology

Various terminology is applied in the area of environmental monitoring. For the purposes of this study it is important to be clear that environmental monitoring involves the collection of time-series data on specified environmental indicators (parameters) using defined sampling methodologies. This is distinct from environmental or resource inventories that are an enumeration of a particular resource or ecosystem and typically provide a snap-shot of resource conditions at a single point in time.

Key Issues

The key issues that need to be addressed in relation to environmental monitoring in BC are:

Supply – Demand Imbalance: There is rapidly increasing interest from various agencies / initiatives to access reliable environmental monitoring (time-series) information. However, most of the environmental information that is available in BC is “point-in-time” inventory information. There is a growing divergence between the demand for high quality, time-series environmental monitoring information and the availability of it.

Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: Although there are some positive signs that certain categories of monitoring data will become more available (e.g., vegetation change monitoring), pressures to reduce monitoring activity for other resource categories continue to increase (e.g., water quality / quantity). Environmental monitoring is currently a discretionary activity that must compete with other environmental management initiatives for scarce budget dollars. To lessen the supply – demand imbalance for environmental monitoring information, formalized business drivers for environmental

Page iv



monitoring are required (e.g., more explicit requirements for agencies to engage in monitoring, potentially based in legislation).

Technical Capacity: The providers of environmental monitoring information are increasingly being called on, ad hoc, by external users of that data to explain and interpret the data. While it is important for this technical service to be provided to data users to prevent the mis-interpretation of data and the potential for inaccurate reporting of environmental outcomes, there is only so much that data providers can do, given their own program priorities and limited resources. A further capacity issue relates to the reduced technical expertise within programs to develop monitoring systems / networks that are capable of producing statistically valid and credible data.

Indicator Proliferation: It is questionable whether or not it is necessary for BC to track the large number of environmental indicators that provincial agencies, in combination, are interested in measuring (over 200). In addition, there are overlaps among agencies / initiatives in the indicators they are / are proposing to measure. Both of these issues need to be addressed to achieve efficiencies.

Lack of Coordination: Along with the expanding agency interest in environmental monitoring comes a critical need for increased coordination and cooperation. A corporate approach to decision-making is required on key questions such as: funding and designing monitoring systems; developing monitoring standards; managing monitoring data collection, storage and distribution; roles and responsibilities for interpreting and reporting monitoring results; etc.

Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmental conditions is to improve the quality of environmental management decision-making. Closer bridges are needed between the results / findings of environmental monitoring and the policy responses of decision-makers.

Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BC with an interest in collecting environmental monitoring data. The federal government, First Nations, local governments, universities and institutes and the private sector should all be involved in initiatives for bringing a BC-wide, corporate perspective to environmental monitoring.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information

BC has plenty of environmental data, but it is generally not the kind that is needed for interpreting trends in environmental condition and assessing program / policy / plan effectiveness. A main reason for the limited supply of environmental monitoring data is that environmental monitoring is currently a discretionary activity that is based in policy or informal / implicit business drivers.



Page v

Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal business drivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.

Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems

There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmental monitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. To-date, agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information have not been rationalized in relation to government’s broader corporate priorities. The result is multiple agencies proceeding independently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimes overlapping data acquisition implications. As has already been recognized for inventory programs, a corporate perspective on environmental monitoring programs is necessary.

Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly brought under the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure. Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — the coordinating body should include representatives from all parties with a monitoring interest (federal, First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities and institutes; private sector).

Partnering Opportunities

Government needs to identify ways for enhancing the availability of monitoring data by involving outside organizations / interests in designing monitoring systems and collecting and interpreting monitoring results.

Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels of government, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging a cost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental information.

Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes

There is little evidence of good mechanisms for integrating environmental monitoring results into improved environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, the public investment into environmental monitoring is questionable.

Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a “corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options for ensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actually integrated into environmental decision-making.

Page vi Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study


AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS

The following abbreviations appear in the report:

AAC Allowable Annual Cut BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification BCAL BC Assets and Lands Corporation BCTFA BC Transportation Financing Authority BTM Baseline Thematic Mapping CCFM Canadian Council of Forest Ministers CCFM C&I Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Criteria and Indicators C&I Criteria and Indicators CDC Conservation Data Centre CSA Canadian Standards Association DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans EC Environment Canada FiRBC Fisheries Renewal BC FISS Fish Information Summary System FoRBC Forest Renewal BC FSC Forest Stewardship Council GIS Geographic Information System GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District IAMC Inter-agency Management Committee LIICC Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee LUCO Land Use Coordination Office LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Food MMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs MOAA Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs MOEM Ministry of Energy and Mines MOF Ministry of Forests MoFi Ministry of Fisheries MOH Ministry of Health MOTH Ministry of Transportation and Highways MELP Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks MSBTC Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture PAS Protected Area Strategy PSIR Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework SFM Sustainable Forest Management SLUP Strategic Land Use Plan TRIM Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping TSA Timber Supply Area



Page 1

11.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

1.1. Background

The British Columbia government, like many other jurisdictions, faces the challenge of managing increasing pressures on the natural resource base with steadily eroding institutional capabilities. Environmental and natural resource management activities over the next few decades will likely focus on:

1) improving the management of terrestrial and aquatic systems to maintain the diversity and integrity of those systems while providing a sustainable supply of social benefits; and

2) mitigating the environmental and public health effects of terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric degradation resulting from human activity.

Success in these areas will depend on a broad understanding of environmental issues and on a consensus on priorities for action. These will in turn depend on the regular collection of reliable, time-series information on selected indicators of environmental condition so that:

1) the state of the environment can be determined at any point in time;

2) significant trends in environmental quality (including emerging problems) can be identified; and

3) timely, effective and prioritized management action can be initiated.

It is against this general background that the provincial Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee (LIICC) initiated this project to undertake an environmental monitoring needs analysis.

1.2. Study Purpose and Scope

LIICC is mandated to coordinate the development and implementation of land and natural resource inventory programs. The committee is aware of the recent interest in and proliferation of “strategic-level” environmental monitoring and reporting initiatives, including: strategic land use plan and landscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring, environmental trends monitoring, state of forests monitoring, monitoring nationally-defined criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, and state of parks monitoring. In addition, there is increasing interest in implementing a “results-based” forest practices code, and supporting the delivery of forest certification schemes. Most recently, government has indicated an intent to create a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainability who will be responsible for monitoring and bi-annual reporting on environmental performance in British Columbia. These activities are in addition to environmental monitoring that is done by agencies in support of their program delivery responsibilities (e.g., air quality, water quality / quantity monitoring).

Page 2 Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study


All of these monitoring initiatives, which are aimed ultimately at improving the ability to make decisions that promote sustainable environmental management, involve the need for diverse types of environmental sampling programs to enable the time-series measurement of various environmental parameters (indicators).

Concerns from LIICC’s point of view that are inherent in an uncoordinated approach in the development and delivery of strategic-level monitoring systems are:

potential inefficiencies associated with developing diverse and potentially overlapping sets of indicators. At present, each monitoring initiative is developing its own set of monitoring indicators, with its own data needs. Inevitably, there will be similarities among indicator sets and the methodologies and data needed to monitor and report on the indicators. Can we develop a focused / core set of indicators that can serve the priority needs of multiple monitoring programs, and agree on the data that will be collected to measure the indicators? If we could, this may reduce public expenditure into data collection.

potential ineffectiveness of the monitoring results. Investments into monitoring environmental conditions and trends are only justified if the findings / results of monitoring programs are relevant to, and integrated into, decision-making. Are we measuring the right elements (indicators) of environmental condition — ones that will actually enable us to make decisions that progress us towards goals of sustainable environmental management. If we are not, then some investments into data collection and trends analysis may be wasted.

conflicting reporting among different monitoring initiatives, which may be measuring indicators for the same land base, could possibly arrive at different conclusions about environmental condition. It will be important to ensure that monitoring programs apply the right kinds of data to criteria and indicator measures, and base their interpretations on an accurate understanding of what the data and measurements mean.

To respond to these issues, we must start by clarifying the current information needs of decision-makers. To that end, this study has attempted to answer the following basic question:

“What environmental condition information do the province’s natural resource management agencies need to support monitoring initiatives that are undertaken to enhance their strategic policy and program decision-making capability?”

Thus the primary objective of the project was to undertake a “needs analysis” for a government-wide, corporate environmental condition monitoring system to facilitate strategic-level policy and program decision-making. The study focused on information needs for environmental condition monitoring, with minor consideration of operational / compliance monitoring only where information can be aggregated upwards to support “corporate” decision-making (see definitions in section 2.1). This corporate baseline would serve the decision-making needs of both individual Ministries and inter-agency planning entities and processes. The needs-analysis encompassed the information requirements of all environmental “sectors” including atmospheric quality, water quality, water quantity, aquatic ecology and terrestrial ecology.



Page 3

1.3. Methods

The needs analysis was carried out through interviews and the use of a generic questionnaire directed at agencies that are monitoring, or are preparing to monitor and interpret environmental information as a basis for reporting on the condition of environmental quality in BC, and / or to measure the effectiveness of their program activities in achieving corporate environmental goals and objectives. One element of the analysis was to determine the business drivers (i.e., the mandate) for these monitoring initiatives, which may include: legislation; international and national protocols, commitments contained in individual program plans or integrated resource management plans; agencies’ internal efforts to implement adaptive management principles; and requirements for meeting government-wide accountability standards.

The questionnaire and interviews were generally targeted at agency program directors / managers involved in strategic and corporate planning and program / policy analysis, and associated staff that are involved directly in developing, interpreting, and reporting on outcome-based measures (i.e., criteria and indicators).

The questionnaire and interviews were aimed at identifying:

1) the business drivers for their effectiveness monitoring initiatives

2) the general nature, scope, frequency and audience of their monitoring initiatives

3) the individuals that are involved in monitoring

4) the basic questions that they are trying to answer through their monitoring initiatives

5) the environmental parameters (criteria and indicators) they are measuring in efforts to answer their questions

6) the current sources of data / information for measuring their selected environmental parameters

7) issues and comments related to the availability and adequacy of information / data that they require for their monitoring purposes.

Where agencies are not presently involved in monitoring but foresee a need to become involved, contacts were asked to speculate on their future monitoring information / data needs.

1.4. Report Organization

In addition to this introductory chapter, the report contains the following material:

Chapter 2 provides an overview of environmental monitoring, including definitions of key monitoring terminology and a description of the relationships between “research”, “inventory” and “monitoring”.



Chapter 3 describes BC’s current legal, policy and institutional context for environmental monitoring in BC. Monitoring “business drivers” and agency involvement in environmental monitoring are described.

Chapter 4 describes BC initiatives that generate environmental monitoring (i.e., time series) information that is potentially available for various trends interpretation and reporting, and program / plan / policy effectiveness assessment uses. Initiatives are described according to atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land tenure / use categories.

Chapter 5 describes the existing and proposed users and uses of environmental monitoring information for agency strategic planning purposes; interpretation and reporting on environmental / sustainability trends; assessments of agencies’ plans, programs and policies. This chapter identifies the type of environmental indicators that agencies are currently tracking, or are intending to track, over time, and associated environmental monitoring information needs.

Chapter 6 provides a summary of environmental monitoring issues, leading to study conclusions and recommendations.

Supporting information is provided in report appendices.



Page 5

22.. EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG:: AANN OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW

2.1. Definitions

The general term “monitoring” embraces a number of quite different activities in a natural and environment resource management context:

Environmental Condition (also known as ambient or effectiveness) Monitoring — measures environmental condition, usually against long-term resource management goals or objectives, and when measured in “time-series” determines trends in condition.

Validation Monitoring — is a semi-research activity undertaken to evaluate: a) the degree to which monitoring indicators and techniques measure real environmental conditions and trends, and b) the cause / effect relationship between environmental condition and management interventions.

Compliance (also known as operational) Monitoring — measures performance against legal environmental standards or permit / plan conditions in order to establish a compliance record.

Program (also known as implementation) Monitoring — determines progress in program implementation against established “benchmarks” (number of activities completed, area treated, number of clients served, cost of delivery, etc).

As noted in chapter 1, this project and the following discussion will focus primarily on environmental condition monitoring, with some consideration of operational and program monitoring initiatives where information is comprehensive enough to be aggregated upwards to support strategic decision-making.

2.2. Monitoring and Strategic Decision-Making

Perhaps the most tenuous aspect of the environmental management cycle is the link between monitoring and management action. Even at the operational level, where the relationship would seem to be most straight forward, many industrial operations have not yet fully integrated environmental monitoring with day-to-day decision-making. The result is that non-compliance does not always elicit an immediate and positive operational response. It is, however, at the level of strategic policy and program development in government institutions that the link between monitoring and management action is least developed. There are a number of reasons for this:

• senior decision-makers may not have thought about, or articulated, their needs for data at this level of decision-making;



• the bewildering array of “environmental” information does not lend itself easily to consolidation and aggregation;

• much of the “information” is of poor quality and not collected with either the regularity or the scientific rigour that allows interpretation of the trends and comparisons that are most important in identifying management programs and setting priorities;

• “environmental indicators” being monitored may not adequately represent environmental condition;

• most senior decision-makers lack the technical expertise to properly interpret environmental monitoring data;

• information providers are not always able to present data in a form that is easily understood by “non-technical” persons; and

• environmental issues, and the information relating to them, seldom conform to the jurisdictional and institutional boundaries devised by government planners, with the result that monitoring is often poorly coordinated and fragmented.

Environmental monitoring is of most use to senior decision-makers when it is collected in “time-series” so that trends in condition can be determined and those trends compared with a desired state. Several recent initiatives - Environmental Indicators, State-of-Environment Reporting, State-of-the Forest Reporting, State-of-Parks Reporting - either are doing, or intend to do, comprehensive trend analysis. It is not known, however, how these reporting initiatives influence, or are used by, senior staff for program / policy decision-making purposes. These initiatives also have a significant public education potential, which may require specialized information interpretation and presentation.

A “corporate approach” to monitoring offer a number of advantages for strategic decision-making, including:

1) common standards of information collection and organization;

2) efficiencies and synergies in data collection, interpretation and reporting;

3) ensuring that information sets are readily available to all potential users; and

4) avoiding the appearance of bias.

This does not mean that all information should be collected by a central agency, merely that the corporate system should be able to influence and harmonize standards of data collection and interpretation, accommodate all general information sets, and have the capability to access all specific environmental data sets.

2.3. Indicators and Indices

Given the problems and needs described above, there has been increasing interest over the past decade in the development of scientifically-credible environmental indicators and indices.



Page 7

Studies in this field do not always distinguish between indicators and indices, and so for purposes of this discussion, the following definitions will be used:

Indicator — a number or other descriptor, measured in real units, which is assumed to be representative of a larger set of conditions or values (e.g., an indicator of biodiversity condition could be the amount or distribution of old forest cover).

Index — values, expressed on a simple numerical (e.g.,1-10, 1-100, 1-200 etc) or descriptive (i.e. low, moderate, high, extreme) scale, which represents a summation of various conditions and measurements across a broad field (e.g., water quality in a particular water body or watershed might be reported on as being excellent, good, fair, borderline or poor, based on a synthesis of various water quality / chemistry parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, turbidity, metals, etc.)

Indicators and indices are developed for similar purposes:

• simplification of complex relationships,

• selection of the most relevant information for a given management purpose,

• quantification of information on environmental conditions and trends,

• communication of information to decision-makers and the public,

• allocation of financial resources between issues and regions,

• enforcement of environmental standards, and

• to enhance the efficiency and quality of data collection,

And, they likewise suffer from the same problems and limitations:

• oversimplification,

• subjectiveness, both in the assumed representativeness of chosen indicators and in the numerical valuation and weightings associated with indices,

• a loss of information,

• the potential for misuse,

• inadequate understanding of the underlying cause-effect relationships, and

• the obscuring of important conditions and trends in the individual, aggregate data-sets.

Indices, because they attempt to convert data in different form to simple scales, intensify the problems of loss of information, oversimplification, subjectivity and the masking of important relationships in underlying data. Very simple environmental indices have been developed within discrete sectors (i.e. air and water quality indices) and substantial research has been carried out on “composite environmental indices” that might allow aggregated, multi-sectoral environmental ratings. Most researchers have concluded that the development of composite indices that might be applied to real, practical decision-making are more than a decade away, however, new data bases should, at least, anticipate their eventual development and application.



2.4. The Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework for the Selection of Environmental Indicators

Nearly all environmental inventory and monitoring initiatives involve the use of indicators of one form or another. Ideally, indicators should be selected that directly reflect the health or condition of the environment, however, this may not always be possible or practical. Proxy parameters that are often easier to measure can sometimes be found through application of the “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” (PSIR) Model (Harvard University 1995). This model assumes that the state of the environment can be linked to socio-economic influences: i.e. that human activities impose pressures on the environment but because humans are also dependent on the environment, the resulting environmental change can cause impacts on humans and their valued ecosystems that in turn require a management response. The major implication of this model to the selection of indicators is that it may be easier to measure pressure, impact or response parameters than actual environmental condition, providing that the pressure-state-impact-response relationship is well understood. Simple examples of the PSIR relationship are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship

Environmental Issue

Pressure State Impact Management Response

Ground water use and quality

• Water withdrawal exceeds recharge

• Aquifer depletion

• Drying wells and water shortages

• Increased water use efficiency

• Licensing and fees • Provision of alternate

sources

Salmonid habitat • Surface water withdrawals

• Disturbance to streams and riparian areas

• Destruction or degradation of spawning and rearing habitat

• Decreased aquatic productivity

• Decreased returns of mature fish

• Decreased survival and out-migration of juvenile fish

• Fish habitat restoration

• Stock rehabilitation • Stream and riparian

protection regulations• In-stream flow

requirements

Critical lands (steep slopes, fragile soils, etc)

• Increased logging, land disturbance and road building on steep slopes

• Increased soil erosion, land instability and stream sedimentation

• Water quality degradation.

• Hydrologic disruption.

• Aquatic habitat degradation

• Greater regulation of human activity on critical lands

• Watershed and fish habitat rehabilitation

The major problem in the application of the PSIR model to the selection of indicators is that the relationship may not be as straight-forward or direct as it appears (in the table above under salmonid habitat, for example, decreased returns of mature fish and survival of juveniles may be due to influences in the open ocean or to climate change as well as habitat degradation). If a particular indicator is to be really useful as a monitoring tool it must be truly representative of the system being monitored and there must be adequate understanding of the PSIR relationship. It



Page 9

must always be kept in mind in drawing judgements and interpretations that, however well chosen, indicators are merely an assumed model of reality, not reality itself.

2.5. The Relationship between Research, Inventory and Monitoring

It is important not to confuse monitoring with two closely related activities: research and inventory.

Research is the most intensive and expensive level of data collection, carried out on relatively small areas to achieve a better understanding of complex relationships with the hope that such understanding can be extrapolated to much larger areas.

Inventory is an enumeration of an ecological system; generally carried out either to provide a basis for estimating potential yield or to establish a baseline. “Time-series” information may be derived from both research and inventory, but only if the research is sufficiently long-term and the inventory is repeated. In both cases this is a very expensive way to derive such information. Additionally, the site-specific level at which research is carried out makes it difficult to aggregate and generalize information, and inventory methods often change, making it difficult or impossible to compare the results of successive inventories. Well-conceived monitoring is always the most practical, pragmatic and least-costly method of deriving time-series information, and has the most direct link to management. The relationship between the three activities is illustrated in the following figure:

RESEARCH --------------- INVENTORY ---------------- MONITORING

------------------------ increasing cost per unit area ------------------------------------------- ------------------- increasing use of selected indicators ----------------------------------- ------------- increasing direct influence on management activities -------------------- -------------increasing spatial intensity of data collection -------------------------------- ---------------- increasing complexity of data collection -------------------------------

In summary, research can provide a better understanding of cause and effect and the PSIR relationship; inventory provides a baseline or “snapshot in time” and a basis for selecting indicators for long-term monitoring; and monitoring relies on research and inventory results to provide relatively cheap and simple means of measuring trends and change in environmental condition over time.



2.6. Principles of Environmental Monitoring

However monitoring information is interpreted and presented for strategic policy and program development, the basic information must be collected through monitoring programs that conform to a number of principles:

• monitoring must have a focus or context, i.e. priority issues, predicted impacts;

• management objectives, management plans, environmental standards etc;

• monitoring must be formalized and statistically replicatable, with standards for sampling and reporting, defined responsibilities, and firm schedules;

• monitoring should focus on trends and change in environmental quality rather than on comprehensive description, linking (at least in an inferred way) present condition both to past quality and a desired future state;

• monitoring programs must be both feasible and affordable; and

• wherever possible, monitoring indicators should provide linkages between the environment and socio-economic development.

2.7. Linking Environmental Monitoring to Social and Economic Monitoring

Sustainable development may be described as a development strategy, characterized by prudence and vision, in which social, environmental and economic objectives are balanced to produce a community of lasting quality, harmony and prosperity. If that balance is to be achieved, it is vital that monitoring programs of social, environmental and economic condition be linked, and integrated at the points of linkage. As noted above, the PSIR model offers a means of developing these linkages, particularly in the important relationships between environmental health and public health and between environmental quality and economic activity. Table 2 provides simple hypothetical examples of these linkages (see Table 1 for additional examples).

Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using the PSIR Framework

Environmental Issue


Eco-tourism and back-country recreation

• Increasing intensity of recreational use

• Site damage to soil and vegetation

• Wildlife populations under stress

• Decreased recreational quality

• Decreased economic opportunity

• Increased wildlife/human interactions

• Loss of biodiversity

• Determination of carrying capacity.

• Limitations on visitor use • Introduction of recreational

tenures with conditions • Provision of facilities and

infrastructure to distribute use and reduce damage

• Zoning and timing restrictions



Page 11

Environmental Issue


Wood production

• Wood harvesting and processing capacity exceeds sustainable yields

• Deforestation and forest degradation

• Declining wood production and employment.

• Loss of forest function and biodiversity

• Rationalize wood processing industry

• Economic transition strategies for forest-dependent communities

• Intensive plantation forestry on degraded forest lands

Air Quality • Increasing air emissions from regulated and non-regulated sources

• Degrading air quality (i.e. ozone and respirable particulates)

• Increasing incidence of respiratory disease (P.M. 2.5 and ozone)

• Vegetation (natural and agricultural) damage (ozone)

• Airshed planning. • More stringent emission

standards

• Burning bans.

• Improved public transport • Fuel and vehicle taxes • Air quality alerts



Page 13

33.. TTHHEE LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE,, PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL CCOONNTTEEXXTT FFOORR EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG IINN BBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA

3.1. “Business Drivers” for Environmental Monitoring

A new legislative initiative, that may have a more comprehensive impact on effectiveness monitoring programs than any existing legal instrument, is the “Budget Transparency and Accountability Act” (July 6, 2000). The Act requires every “ministry and government organization” to:

1) prepare an annual performance plan, which shall be made public, for the fiscal year and the following two fiscal years, such plans to include a statement of goals, specific objectives and performance measures; and

2) prepare annual performance reports, which shall be made public, comparing actual results for the preceding fiscal year with the expected results identified in that year’s performance plan.

All Ministries are in the process of developing the performance measures required under the Act. For environmental and natural resource agencies, performance measures will essentially consist of environmental effectiveness monitoring indicators.

Beyond the requirements arising out of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, “business drivers” for environmental monitoring include such diverse instruments as:

• specific acts and regulations (including licences and permits that are issued under an act or regulation and that require environmental monitoring at a site level);

• international and national conventions and protocols;

• policy and program plans;

• strategic inter-agency planning programs;

• regional and sub-regional inter-agency planning processes; and

• local and operational plans.

These can be categorized as monitoring initiatives that are either:

1) explicitly required by legislation;

2) implicitly required by legislation;

3) required for policy or program development; or

4) required for planning processes.



Currently in BC, aside from Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requirements, no land / resource statutes “explicitly require” environmental monitoring, although there are a few potential exceptions presently under consideration. For example, it is expected that changes to protected area legislation will result in a legislated obligation for regular reporting by MELP on the state of BC’s parks. This will require MELP to obtain access to various environmental information on ecosystem conditions in protected areas. It can be assumed that this mandated requirement will lead to some form of time-series monitoring of ecological integrity in BC’s protected areas. Similarly, it is expected that the proposed new BC Commissioner of Environment and Sustainability will be empowered by law to report periodically on BC’s environmental performance and condition. This will require the Commissioner, (as a user of monitoring information, not a generator of it) to obtain access to environmental monitoring information, most likely from line agencies. This may or may not result in an increased level of environmental monitoring in those line agencies.

Environmental monitoring is “implicitly required” by a few statutes that identify particular goals or objectives in the statutes themselves. For example, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Growth Strategies Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act contain various goals or objectives respecting future environmental conditions that the legislation aims to achieve. There is an implied expectation that time-series monitoring would occur to assess the extent to which these stated goals and objectives are being achieved; however, there is no specific requirement imposed on the responsible agencies to actually perform any monitoring, interpretation or reporting on goals achievement.

By far the greatest amount of environmental monitoring that presently occurs in BC is driven by agencies’ individual needs for information to support their policy, programming, or planning functions and responsibilities. The consequence of having very few formalized (i.e., legislated) drivers for the ongoing collection of monitoring information is that environmental monitoring proposals have a hard time to compete with other spending priorities. If no requirements for long-term monitoring programs are imposed on budgeting decision-makers, it is very easy for environmental monitoring programs to succumb to other spending obligations and priorities. The lack of formalized business drivers for environmental monitoring is likely a main reason behind the past and current limited availability of good, time-series environmental monitoring information in BC. Although there is recently increased interest in and commitment to greater investment into monitoring programs that can generate good time-series environmental monitoring (e.g., vegetation change inventory and monitoring initiative), it remains to be seen if these programs can be sustained over the long-run without a more formalized foundation.

3.2. Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring

Agencies interviewed for this study, either as environmental data users or providers, can be categorized as follows in terms of their involvement in environmental monitoring, as shown in Table 3.



Page 15

Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC

CATEGORY AGENCIES

Data provider that is independent of a resource management function

• Geographic Data B.C. (MELP)

Data provider that is part of a management agency

• Resource Inventory Branch (MELP) • Resource Inventory Branch (MOFor)

• Information Services Branch (MOFi) • Information Provision Branch (MOAA) (also an information user / analyst)

Management agency with its own data collection capacity

• Air Resources Branch (MELP) • Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch (MELP) • Wildlife Branch (MELP)

• Parks and Ecological Reserves Management Branch (MELP) • Crown Lands Branch (MELP) • Water Management Branch (MELP) • Public Health Protection Branch (MOH)

Management agency with an associated data provider.

• Habitat Branch (MELP)

• Fisheries Management Branch (MOFi) • Forest Practices Branch (MOFor) • Strategic Planning and Policy Branch (MOFor) • Timber Supply Branch (MOFor)

• Implementation Branch (MOAA)

Agency with trend analysis / reporting responsibilities

• Corporate Policy Branch (MELP) • Forest Practices Branch (MOFor) • Inter-agency Management Committees (Land Use Coordination Office) • Commissioner of Environment and Sustainability (Auditor General)

Management agencies with no associated data provider (rely on secondary data)

• Tourism Policy and Land Use Branch (MSBTC) • Green Economy Secretariat

• Growth Strategies Office (MMA) • Environmental Assessment Office • Fisheries Renewal B.C.

• Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch (MOH) • Implementation Branch (MOAA)

Agencies that fund inventory and monitoring initiatives

• Forest Renewal BC • LUCO • MAA

MELP = Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks MOFor = Ministry of Forests MOFi = Ministry of Fisheries MOH = Ministry of Health MSBTC = Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture MAA = Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs MMA = Ministry of Municipal Affairs



All of the agencies interviewed for this study have their own unique needs, however, a number of generalizations can be made on the basis of the different types of organizations reflected in the table above:

1) a diverse array of agencies want to access environmental monitoring data in one form or another;

2) many organizations have no forum in which to express their monitoring information needs, or access to funds that would allow them to “influence” data collectors;

3) several agencies are requesting information that may not have been collected to suit their particular needs;

4) some agencies lack a technical information group to assist in data management and interpretation and, conversely, others (i.e., data providers) lack the business case expertise to develop monitoring products;

5) there is no corporate or inter-agency body (as there currently is for inventory — LIICC / RIC) to champion, integrate and coordinate environmental monitoring initiatives for the province.



Page 17

44.. TTHHEE GGEENNEERRAATTIIOONN OOFF EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN IINN BBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA

This chapter describes existing or proposed environmental monitoring initiatives that produce time-series environmental information that may be used for various purposes, including: strategic / program planning; environmental and sustainability trends interpretation and reporting; and assessing the effectiveness of programs, policies, plans, etc. in achieving their underlying objectives. Also described here are selected inventory initiatives where it was apparent from study interviews that inventory information will be used as a monitoring baseline.

Monitoring initiatives are organized in four categories: atmospheric resources, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, and cross-sectoral land use / land condition monitoring initiatives. Within each of these categories, information is provided on business drivers, indicators within the PSIR framework for which monitoring information is / will be available, sources of monitoring information, primary users of the monitoring information, and primary data deficiencies and needs. At the end of the chapter, a summary is provided of the status of provincial monitoring initiatives. (See chapter 5 for a detailed look at agencies’ information requirements as derived from the specific environmental indicators that agencies wish to track over time.)

4.1. Atmospheric Environmental Monitoring

Business Drivers

Current atmospheric monitoring initiatives focus primarily on two environmental issues: air quality and public health; and global climate change.

Air quality monitoring is not specifically required by legislation but is necessary to provide a context for air emission standards in permits issued under the authority of the Waste Management Act. Air quality monitoring is further driven by the National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) program for urban air quality, the need to demonstrate compliance with the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for ozone and suspended particulates, and the need to provide information to the public on serious air quality episodes and in the event of environmental emergencies.

Climate change monitoring is driven by Canada’s commitment to greenhouse gas reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Monitoring responsibilities are shared with the Government of Canada, with the province’s responsibilities now detailed in a three-year “Climate Change Business Plan”. Meteorological monitoring, carried out in conjunction with air quality monitoring, supports activities to address both issues: providing information for pollutant dispersion modelling and regional / local airshed management; and long-term climatic records to monitor changes.



Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following types of atmospheric resource indicators. See Appendix 4 for a more detailed description of indicators and associated environmental information requirements.

Issue Pressure Indicators

Condition Indicators

Impact Indicators Response Indicators

Air Quality • Emission source inventory

• Compliance records

• Dispersion models

• Ambient air quality monitoring network

• (P.M. 10, P.M. 2.5, ozone, CO, NOx, SO2, TRS).

• Meteorological monitoring network

• Public health statistics on morbidity and mortality from respiratory diseases

• Frequency and distribution of air quality alerts

• Number and extent of airshed plans

Climate Change

• Inventory of greenhouse gas emission sources and amounts

• Dynamics of carbon sinks and sequestration in natural and agricultural systems

• Long-term climatology and meteorology monitoring and modeling

• Ecological monitoring (i.e. extent of snow and ice fields, frequency of natural wildfires, frequency of stress-related forest insect and disease attack, changes in fish species composition and abundance)

• Economic monitoring (i.e. frequency and extent of economic losses due to extreme climatic events)

• Implementation of the B.C. Climate Change Business Plan (i.e. energy and industry, transportation, communities and buildings and forests and agriculture, and supporting action strategies)

Sources of Information

Air quality and meteorological monitoring information is collected and managed by MELP and by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). GVRD currently has the highest density of air quality monitoring stations in the province. Outside GVRD, air quality stations are either operated directly by MELP (34 sites), by industrial operations operating under waste management permits (44 sites) or in partnership (6 sites). Of these, 42 sites also provide a standard range of meteorological data. Information from all sources is stored in a separate data management system maintained by the Air Management Branch of MELP. Additional meteorological information for B.C. is available from the federal network maintained by Environment Canada.

Greenhouse gas inventories are currently estimated by Environment Canada with information provided by MELP, Statistics Canada and industrial partners.



Page 19

Primary Information Users

Air Quality: MELP (Headquarters and regions), GVRD, Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch (MOH), Regional Medical Health Officers, Environment Canada.

Climate Change: MELP, MEM, MEI, MOA, MOFor, MOFi, MOH, MOMA, MOTH, MCDCV, MFCR, Green Economy Secretariat, BC Hydro, BCBC, Crown Corporations Secretariat, Purchasing Commission, GVRD, BCTFA. (All contributing agencies to the B.C. Climate Change Business Plan).

Data Deficiencies and Needs

Air Quality: Data deficiencies identified by MELP and MOH relate to both the amount and type of information collected. Current geographic distribution of monitoring stations is inadequate, particularly in the interior of the province. Monitors are provided by the federal government under NAPS but operational and maintenance costs must be borne by MELP, GVRD and industrial partners. This leads to anomalies such as no monitoring in some interior communities (because of limited MELP funding) and three times the number of stations in Prince George where financial support comes from industry.

In terms of the types of information available: PM10 is relatively good; PM2.5 is very scarce and represents the most important current data deficiency; ozone information is very sparse with not nearly enough stations at a time when research is indicating that ozone is second only to suspended particulates in terms of public health concerns; and there is little or no monitoring of toxics and acid deposition. Health science information (and thus the information medical health officers would like) is progressing faster than monitoring technology and design, particularly in the areas of the effects of different sizes of pollutant particles (it is not possible, for example, to sample for both fine and coarse respirable particulates with one monitor) and the synergistic effects of different pollutants. MOH and MELP are currently cooperating on studies to provide: 1) up-to-date summaries of scientific information on the relationship between common air pollutants (both individually and in mixtures) and human health, and 2) risk assessment methods that have been or could be used to estimate impacts of air pollution on human health. These studies would be used to up-grade monitoring techniques and abatement priorities.

Global Climate Change: Monitoring associated with global climate change is currently in very rapid development and change. The Climate Change Business Plan calls for improvements to monitoring in three areas. First, the province will work with the federal government and industry to improve the accuracy of greenhouse gas inventories. Second, MOFor will work to develop a forest carbon accounting framework and forest carbon budget modelling, and MOFor/MAF will develop programs to monitor carbon sequestration and release in forest and agricultural soils. Third, the Corporate Policy Branch of MELP in cooperation with other agencies has initiated a contract to determine relevant ecological and economic indicators of climate change for long-term monitoring.



4.2. Terrestrial Environment Monitoring

Business Drivers

Terrestrial environment monitoring involves the generation of time-series data for soils, vegetation and wildlife and wildlife habitat resources.

Soil Resources: BC currently has no specific, comprehensive program to monitor the condition of the provincial soils resource (e.g., amount of erosion, organic content, soil moisture, etc.), although MOF’s Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (driven by the National Forest Inventory initiative) should include some site-level, time-series monitoring of selected forest soils attributes. In addition, some local / regional information (e.g., Kamloops forest region) may be available, for example, on turbidity levels which would be an indication of soil erosion. As well, some time-series data is available that enables an interpretation of soils condition, vis a vis certain land use activities (primarily forestry). For example, existing time-series information on the area of land that has been subject to timber harvesting, or the length of new forestry roads constructed, enables inferences to be drawn about soil condition.

The business drivers for collecting this sort of data are based primarily in agencies’ administrative / management programs – there is no direct legal drivers that explicitly require agencies to monitor soil condition (other than what might occur at the site / tenure level where soil / erosion control may be an explicit permit condition that requires some site-level monitoring for the life of the permit / tenure). There are, however, implicit requirements in certain statutes that may serve as business drivers for soil monitoring initiatives. In particular, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and Code regulations and guidelines would suggest a need to track soil condition over time. Also, if a higher level plan is adopted under the code that makes reference to soils management, then there is an implied requirement for soils monitoring, although this would likely occur through the strategic land use plan (LRMP) effectiveness monitoring program. Operational planning under the Code requires forest planners to consider soils information (terrain stability / hazard mapping) but monitoring of soils per se is not a requirement of operational planning.

A further, recent potential business driver for soils monitoring (and other environmental resources) are the environmental goals defined in the Growth Strategies Act, now incorporated into the new municipal act (Local Government Act), the Islands Trust Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and the Vancouver Charter. These statutes now require local government planning to accommodate provincial goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the integrity of the resource base, and reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution. Again, although there is no explicit requirement in this for soil, air, water, etc. monitoring, there certainly is an implied requirement.

Finally, with respect to business drivers for soils, legislation does exist to regulate contaminated sites, and this involves record-keeping on the number and location of contaminated sites in BC. It should be possible to produce time-series information on



Page 21

contaminated sites from this information to satisfy the legislation’s implied need to assess program effectiveness in controlling soils contamination.

Vegetation Resources: As noted above, program has been recently initiated to monitor change in vegetation resources condition – the “Change Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation Resources” initiative. This is in addition to standard MOF vegetation resources inventory, from which some limited time-series information on vegetation condition may be derived.

The Change Inventory and Monitoring initiative is driven primarily out of the business need to provide data to meet National Forest Inventory (NFI) goals that are aimed, among other things, at supporting the Canadian Council of Forest Minister’s (CCFM) commitment to produce national level reports on the status and trends of the sustainable forest management (SFM). This monitoring initiative is also being undertaken to contribute to in-province programs such as timber supply analysis, forest certification and provincial State of the Forests reporting, which are important business drivers in their own right. Data from this program should also be able to support assessments of the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving the sustainable forest use goals that underlie the Code, as expressed in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act preamble (e.g., “conserving biological diversity, soil, water, fish, wildlife, scenic diversity and other forest resources; restoring damaged ecologies”). At present, no provincial organization is directly assessing the various aspects of the Code (e.g., biodiversity guidebook old forest retention percentages, identified wildlife conservation strategies, riparian buffer standards, watershed assessment provisions designed to protect soil / water resources, etc.) in terms of the extent to which these provisions are achieving the Code’s basic goals. The Forest Practices Board, however, reports that it is considering identifying performance indicators that would be used for this purpose.

Wildlife Resources: Although various wildlife inventory data is available for BC, there is relatively limited time-series monitoring data on wildlife populations and habitats. Perhaps the most comprehensive information on wildlife condition is held by MELP’s Conservation Data Centre which retains information on rare, threatened and endangered species. Collecting this information is driven out of MELP’s wildlife management program needs, and to contribute to national level information that, in turn, is collected to meet Canada’s international biodiversity convention obligations.

Time-series information on wildlife habitat availability will eventually be available through the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see above) – i.e., forest cover by species, forest age, etc. – and some strategic-level habitat monitoring information (i.e., changes in broad vegetative patterns) can be derived from MELP’s baseline thematic mapping (BTM) initiative. The BTM program has been primarily driven out of a need to serve strategic land use planning requirements.

Population trends information is available for certain bird species as a result of historic and current surveys that are done by and in cooperation with the Canadian Wildlife Service (e.g., breeding bird, migratory bird surveys). Internal and international resource conservation priorities are the primary business drivers for the collection of this monitoring information.



Again, the above-noted new Local Government Act is another potential implicit business driver for wildlife and wildlife habitat resources monitoring. Non-legislative business drivers include forest certification and the various trends interpretation / effectiveness monitoring initiatives.

Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following terrestrial resource indicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associated environmental information requirements.

Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators Response Indicators

Soils • road density

• harvesting or road building activity on steep slopes or unstable terrain

• number and distribution of landslides

• number and distribution of contaminated sites

• soil fertility (organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus content, etc.)

• number and distribution of land slides and erosional landscapes

• number and distribution of watershed rehabilitation projects

• number and distribution of contaminated sites remediation projects

Vegetation • area / volume harvested (by various silviculture systems)

• area and distribution of forest types (by biogeoclimatic zone and ecoregion)

• age class / seral stage distribution

• patch / gap distribution

• total biomass levels • rate / volume of

forest growth • timber harvesting

land base vs area managed for protective functions

• forest health (area and distribution of diseased forest)

• distribution and aerial extent of degraded and converted terrestrial ecosystems

• area / distribution of forest vegetation disturbed

• number and distribution of plant species at risk

• number and distribution of vegetation restoration projects

• numbers of plans, designations, etc. to protect sensitive vegetative resources

Wildlife • wildlife harvest (hunting and trapping)

• population status and trends for selected species

• number and distribution of animal species at risk

• change in population levels for selected species (e.g., birds, amphibians, mammals)

• nature and distribution of harvest restrictions

• number of species classified as “at risk” / “identified wildlife”

Wildlife Habitat

• habitat degradation (changes to structural and spatial diversity)

• distribution and trends in habitat availability for selected wildlife

• trends in the historical range of selected species

• area and distribution of administrative wildlife habitat



Page 23

Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators Response Indicators

• destruction of

“keystone” habitat features (wetlands, old growth, grasslands, nest sites, mineral licks, hibernacula, etc.)

• habitat fragmentation (road density)

designations (e.g., ungulate winter range, wildlife habitat areas, sensitive ecosystems)


Soil Resources: No comprehensive monitoring information is presently being collected on the condition of the province’s soil resources. Soil and surficial geology surveys have been carried out in many areas of the province, but there is no reliable, time-series information on change to the condition / quality of either forest or agricultural soils. The Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see below) is expected to provide time series measurements on some selected soil indicators. The Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch, MELP maintains a comprehensive register of contaminated sites in the province.

Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps (focusing on commercial timber species) have been maintained by the Ministry of Forests for many years. Terrestrial ecosystem maps (TEM) and predictive ecosystem maps (PEM) have been produced by the Resource Inventory Branch of MELP. A proposed new initiative is the provincial participation in the national forestry database program which is expected to begin to soon generate time-series information. — the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring initiative involves measuring the condition of various forest attributes at 2,400 permanent, 2 km by 2 km, air photo assessment plots on a 20 km grid covering the province. Existing GIS data will be assigned to the photo assessment plots (e.g., TRIM, BEC). Re-measurement will occur every 10 years to detect change in forest condition within the plots and this sample information will then be extrapolated to define forest conditions more broadly throughout the province. Data derived from the air photo plots is intended to address up to 30 of the CCFM criteria and indicators for SFM.

To obtain stand-level information that cannot be generated from the air photo plots, over 300 fixed ground sample plots (0.4 ha in size) will be established to measure full vegetation resources inventory attributes such as vegetative species, tree height, decay, coarse woody debris, etc. This level of monitoring, repeated every five years, will produce information that will enable reporting on an additional five CCFM indicators. This monitoring data will also be used in provincial growth and yield monitoring, which is used ultimately for AAC determination purposes.

Wildlife Resources: The Wildlife Branch, MELP has historic population information on a large number of wildlife species derived from both regular and irregular wildlife surveys. The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) maintains similar records for migratory birds and marine mammals. The Conservation Data Centre, MELP is part of a national and



international network. It accepts and utilizes data from MELP, CWS and any other verifiable sources to assess population status for a whole array of species, and produces regular assessments of the status of red and blue listed species.

Terrestrial Habitat: Historic habitat capability maps are available from MELP, primarily for ungulate winter ranges. Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem maps (TEM and PEM) are available from MELP and are used to make interpretations on habitat capability and present condition for a broad array of species. The “Identified Wildlife Strategy” under the Forest Practices Code delineates important habitat areas for red and blue listed animals, vascular planTs and plant communities. Several initiatives have been completed or are underway to identify “sensitive ecosystems” in relation to local government planning. The east coast of Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and Greater Vancouver Regional District have been completed, and an inventory of the Sunshine Coast is now underway. These sensitive ecosystem inventories will provide templates for private lands in the rest of the province. All of these habitat inventories taken together may provide a baseline for long-term monitoring of terrestrial habitat, but they do not represent time-series monitoring initiatives per se.


Primary users of terrestrial environmental information will be MELP program managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOF, MEM, MMA, FiRBC, ForBC, EC, DFO, Local government, and a wide array of industrial operations.

With respect to the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative, the resultant information will be used primarily to construct national and provincial-level reports on the state of Canada’s / BC’s forests (using CCFM criteria and indicators, and BC State of the Forests indicators frameworks). This monitoring information may potentially also be used by a number of other potential users for various applications, including:

• other provincial-level reporting initiatives (e.g., Environmental Trends, LRMP and landscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring);

• land use planning initiatives to describe the planning base-case and to assess optional land use scenarios;

• FRBC to assess the effectiveness of their investments in achieving their goals to increase forest productivity;

• the Forest Practices Board to assess the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving it’s stated aims;

• the Ministry of Forests and the Chief Forester to improve the quality of AAC determinations.

• forest companies and forest certification auditors in assessing forest management performance in relation to forest certification standards, and

• BC’s model forest boards in assessing the condition of their forests in relation to local-level SFM criteria and indicators that they have identified for their forests.



Page 25


Soil Resources: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food identified a need for government to monitor the amount of carbon sequestration in soils (agricultural and forest soils) in order to assess the degree of Canada’s contribution to the Kyoto protocol. Although this Ministry would like to be able to monitor the organic and nutrient content of agricultural soils in order to better understand the effectiveness of programs / initiatives to improve or maintain soil quality, there are currently no programs in place to provide such data. Monitoring data should be available in future for forest soils through the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative. “Pressure” and “impact” information relating to soil erosion and landscape instability may be available from BTM thematic mapping produced by Geographic Data BC.

The Ministry of Forests, as part of the State of the Forests reporting initiative, has indicated a need for monitoring information on the percentage of harvested areas with significant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter. There is also interest in monitoring the area and distribution of soil restoration activity. Given that time-series measurements of forest soils condition is an element of the CCFM criteria and indicators for SFM, these MOF information needs should eventually become available through the MOF / National Forestry Database “Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative for Vegetation Resources”.

Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps focus primarily on commercial timber species, are of uncertain reliability in some locations and are lacking in some locations (e.g., older protected areas). As well, forest inventories have been incrementally upgraded over time, thus losing the capability of providing trends in vegetation change over time. Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem (the distinction relates to the greater amount of ground-truthing TEM mapping) mapping by MELP is much more ecologically relevant, but currently covers only 25% of the province and is useful as a baseline only. Complete provincial coverage and some time-series information on the general spatial distribution / patterns of broad forest age classes within ecoregions is available through the BTM and Watersheds BC initiatives. This monitoring source is potentially very useful for provincial or regional level assessments of vegetative condition; there are, however, limitations on the level of detail that is appropriately interpreted form this monitoring information given that it is derived primarily from satellite imagery. As well, although BTM coverage exists for all of the province (1992-98 data), a second “pass” is only approximately 20% complete, and this limits the ability to interpret time-series change.

The currently-being-developed “Change Inventory and Monitoring Program for Vegetation Resources” should, in future, be able to produce solid monitoring information for a variety of indicators of forest vegetation condition, both at the broad level of measuring spatial patterns, and at the stand level of measuring structural characteristics. This initiative may potentially also provide information on non-commercial species for which information has been historically limited. The ability to use this monitoring data may have some limitations, however, when it comes to reporting on all indicators of interest. For example, accurate provincial-level measurements of forest cover distribution by BEC variant, or forest cover distribution in



protected areas (both of which are proposed State of the Forest monitoring indicators) may be limited on account of the non-random grid pattern of monitoring measurements.

Finally, some non-spatial information on vegetation resources (e.g., harvestable volumes) are available from MOF analyses that are conducted on a five year cycle for timber supply review planning purposes. This information may be valuable for measuring or verifying certain indicators of interest for province-wide state of forests reporting purposes.

Wildlife Resources: Historic wildlife surveys, whether by MELP or CWS, are difficult to interpret as trend information, except over very long time periods, because the number of animals counted at any time is primarily dependent on conditions (i.e., weather) at the time of the survey. Relatively little data compiled by the Conservation Data Centre is true “time-series” information; most is from single-point-in-time inventories which, in aggregate, are used to assess trends. CDC information is not yet really monitoring data, but can be used to develop indicators and monitoring programs. Time-series information for measuring pressure and response indicators for wildlife resources are generally available from MELP administrative records.

4.3. Aquatic Environment Monitoring

Water Quantity: The primary drivers of water quantity monitoring are:

1) the need to provide a context for water allocation decisions under the Water Act and waste discharge permitting under the Waste Management Act;

2) estimation of in-stream flow requirements for fish and other aquatic resources;

3) annual flood forecasting and local government flood prevention zoning; and

4) hydrologic design information for infrastructure, industrial and residential facilities.

Water Quality: The principle drivers for water quality monitoring are:

1) drinking water safety (i.e. standards related to regulated water utilities, water quality objectives for community watersheds relating to provisions under the Forest Practices Code Act, and water quality of domestic wells); and

2) the need to provide a context for industrial and municipal waste discharges in terms of guidelines and objectives for designated water uses (drinking, recreation, irrigation, livestock watering, aquatic life and wildlife). An informal driver in relation to drinking water quality was the 1999 Auditor General’s report that was very critical of the provincial government’s efforts to ensure drinking water safety.

Fisheries: The primary driver for fish stock and habitat quality monitoring is the Fisheries Act (Canada) and a Ministerial memorandum of understanding by which the federal government has delegated the management of sports-fish to the province. A recently- established Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has the responsibility to report publicly to the two levels of government on stock status and habitat quality on the



Page 27

basis of inventory and monitoring information provided by MOFi and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Secondary legal drivers are the International Convention on Biological Diversity, the federal legislation protecting species at risk (if passed) and the provincial Wildlife Act in relation to non-commercial and non-sport fish. Two major initiatives funding fisheries rehabilitation - Fisheries Renewal BC and a new provincial proposal for Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning (WFSP) will also generate significant demand for monitoring information.

Aquatic Habitat: Until recently, aquatic habitat inventory and monitoring has been primarily fisheries-focused. The new provincial Fish Protection Act, however, places increased emphasis on aquatic habitat and is thus likely to generate special monitoring requirements on designated “sensitive streams”. Some water bird and aquatic mammal habitat inventories have been carried out to meet federal Migratory Bird Convention Act and provincial wildlife program requirements. The international biodiversity convention and the proposed federal species-at-risk legislation may stimulate a more holistic approach to aquatic habitat inventories and monitoring.

Indicators

Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators Response Indicators

Water Quantity

• number and volume of water licences and licence applications

• number and distribution of requests for hydrological design information

• hydrometric network • snow survey network

• frequency, extent and distribution of economic losses due to hydrological events

• number and extent of water allocation plans

Water Quality

• number, quality and compliance records of point-source discharges

• land area occupied by uses with potential water quality impacts

• surface water and groundwater quality monitoring network (dissolved solids, hardness, trace elements, chlorophyll a, nutrients, nitrate, pH, sediments, fecal coliforms, cyanide, AOX, temperature, dissolved gases and dissolved oxygen)

• drinking water quality monitoring of regulated utilities (microbiology, protozoans, metals, major ions, nitrate)

• public health statistics on frequency and distribution of water-borne disease

• frequency and distribution of “boil water” advisories

• number and distribution of community watershed plans

Fisheries • fish harvest information

• population status and trends for anadromous, sport, non-commercial and at-risk species

• population declines • declines in fisher

effort, total catch and catch/unit effort

• number and distribution of stock recovery programs



Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators Response Indicators

Aquatic habitat

• watershed stability (land use, land cover, road and stream crossing densities and hydrological characteristics)

• productivity and biodiversity indicators for aquatic and riparian ecosystems

• fish habitat inventories • length of streams by

watershed • length of known

salmon / sportfish / other fish streams

• lengths of streams with gradient<20%

• extent, distribution and trends in riparian and aquatic ecosystem degradation

• number and distribution of watershed, stream and fish habitat rehabilitation projects


Water Quantity: Hydrometric information for the province currently comes from a network of approximately 490 stations (down from over 600 five years ago). Stations are operated by MELP, EC, B.C. Hydro, local governments and industrial operations, with data stored and managed by Resource Inventory Branch, MELP.

Water Quality: Water quality information is available from two primary sources: general environmental monitoring programs; and drinking water utility monitoring. General environmental monitoring includes:

1) a long-term federal / provincial monitoring agreement assessing trends for 29 sites on major lakes and rivers;

2) community watershed objectives-setting baseline monitoring on 64 of the province’s 450 designated watersheds;

3) yearly groundwater monitoring on 120 wells; and

4) extensive ambient water quality monitoring associated with permitted industrial and municipal waste discharges.

Drinking water quality monitoring is a requirement of the Ministry of Health for the approximately 3,500 water systems serving 15 or more connections. The primary focus of this program is tap water (i.e., after treatment and distribution). Availability and quality of water source (or ambient environment) information is highly variable. MOH aims to have, as a minimum, a baseline measurement consisting of a broad scan of biological and chemical parameters and at least one annual sample for each regulated utility.

Fisheries: Fisheries inventory and monitoring information is available from the Ministry of Fisheries for sport and non-commercial fish and from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for commercial anadromous and marine fish.



Page 29

Aquatic Habitat: Ecological aquatic inventory information is available on stream-specific basis from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This information covers only a relatively small portion of the province and is not time-series. Some “pressure” information on aquatic habitats can be determined from analyzing some existing information sets (e.g., road densities, terrain stability mapping, watersheds at risk), however, there is a need to ensure inter-agency agreement on data and analysis of that information. The physical information on total stream length and stream lengths by gradient and known fish presence are contained in the Fish Information Summary System (FISS) component of the Atlas (see the section on Land Tenure and Use for a fuller discussion of the Watersheds Atlas project).


Water Quantity: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOTH, MOMA, ForRBC, FiRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, B.C. Hydro, wide array of industrial operations.

Water Quality: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Parks), MOH, Regional Medical Health Officers, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.

Fisheries: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.

Aquatic Habitat: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.


Water Quantity: Hydrometric data is of high quality, carried out to national standards established by federal / provincial agreement, however, these standards make hydrometric monitoring very expensive, thus limiting the number of stations that can be established. The province currently has about 490 stations. United Nations’ criteria for developing countries indicate that for a jurisdiction as climatically and geographically diverse as B.C. a minimum of 800 (and ideally 1,400) stations would be appropriate. There is a need for a federal / provincial protocol to allow simpler stations to be established, linked to the comprehensive network, to extend coverage at an affordable cost. Much of the cost of current monitoring is borne by FRBC and if this funding support is removed, MELP will be unlikely to fill the gap. There is an urgent need to develop a long-term funding arrangement, requiring all users to contribute, for this important monitoring function.

Water Quality: Despite the large number if sampling sites described above, most have not been sampled frequently enough (sites vary from periodic grab samples to established stations) to provide real time-series information. The last water quality trends analysis



(2000) prepared jointly by Environment Canada and MELP was based on 5-10 years of monthly sampling on 68 sampling sites, and represents the best trend information available for BC water bodies. Because of cost-cutting by both agencies, fewer than 20 of these stations are still being monitored. Beyond these stations, where water quality monitoring is issue / problem driven and permit-focused, the data is reasonable, though monitoring is much less frequent and, because it’s largely reactive, is not broad enough to detect emerging problems.

Drinking-water quality monitoring is far too infrequent to be adequate, particularly for microbial and protozoan measurements which tend to vary widely over short time periods in response to discrete storm and run-off events. MOH intends to increase the number and frequency of source-water sampling but existing source information can’t be melded with the MELP database because it isn’t geo-referenced to any recognized watershed or stream coding system. MELP and MOH are currently cooperating to correct this problem.

Fisheries: Freshwater fish population monitoring has in the past been focused on specific stocks, and was largely project and crisis driven (i.e. sturgeon, steelhead, Kokanee). There has been no organized, standardized long-term monitoring program. DFO is currently revising its monitoring programs (particularly escapement) to impose standard methodologies and is “quality-labelling” previous data to determine what can be incorporated in the new system. MOFi may adopt these DFO methodologies. In addition MOF has recently submitted proposals to FRBC to fund a project to develop indicators of fish sustainability in forest ecosystems, a component of which centres on trends in population status for recreational / commercial and “keystone” non-managed species.

Aquatic Habitat: Currently there is no accepted aquatic ecosystem classification system in B.C. that can provide a context for either inventory or monitoring. In 1994 a sub-committee of RIC proposed a classification hierarchy (ecoregion; biogeoclimatic unit; aquatic ecosystem; stream segment or lake; channel or lake unit; microhabitat) but this proposal was not pursued. Subsequent work has been done regarding watershed and stream reach classification as part of the ForRBC resources inventory, watershed restoration program and FPC implementation, however these often have a forest management rather than a fisheries/aquatic ecosystem focus. MOFi has recently proposed to ForRBC fund for a project that would build upon existing experience to develop an aquatic ecosystem classification system and a broad, province-wide (1:50,000) description of habitats that “will provide a baseline documenting the amount and distribution of aquatic ecosystem types for application to the monitoring of habitat productivity and biodiversity”. The proposal stresses the need to link aquatic and terrestrial environments through watershed unit descriptions because “aquatic ecosystems are dependent on conditions and processes in the surrounding watershed”. The pressure and state indicators provided in the Geographic Data B.C. watershed atlas provide much of this watershed information.



Page 31

4.4. Land Tenure and Use

Business Drivers

Information on land tenure (private and crown) and land use / and cover is fundamental to all levels of resource planning from provincial policy and program planning, to regional, sub-regional, landscape and local area plans. Reliable, time-series information on tenure, use and cover was one of the most frequently cited monitoring need by interviewees in this study.

Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following land tenure / use indicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associated environmental information requirements.

Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators Response Indicators Land administration

• number and distribution of tenure applications for Crown land

• land tenure (private) and administrative zonation (Crown)

• alienation of important habitat.

• encroachment on riparian areas and floodplains

• pressure on water resources

• number and distribution of crown land disposition plans

Land use / land cover.

• area of harvesting (total and by harvesting systems), by elevation and by steep slopes)

• road density (total, steep slopes and within 100m of streams)

• land use and land cover (mapping and statistics for 20 land use and vegetation cover classes)


Land Administration: Information on land tenure and jurisdiction is available from the crown lands registry information system. The Crown Lands Branch and Crown Land Registry Services of MELP have produced land administration statistics for the province for two reporting periods (1989 and 1996). The reports contain information on land tenure issuance, land in private ownership, and various land use designations. The BC Assets and Lands Corporation can provide information on the number and distribution of applications by tenure type for Crown lands, with information derived from the Crown Land Registry Information System.

Land Use / Land Cover: Geographic Data B.C.’s Baseline Thematic Mapping (BTM) program provides comprehensive, province-wide information (mapped and statistical) on land use / land cover based, variously across the province, on sources from 1992 to



1998. Work is presently underway to produce a second generation of this data which will enable some time-series interpretation.


Information on both land administration and land use / land cover is required by: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.


Land Administration: The last report on land administration statistics produced by MELP was in 1996. There is a need to up-date this publication, particularly in view of the significant changes in crown administration resulting from the protected areas strategy and recent crown land dispositions by BC Crown Lands and Assets Corporation.

Land Use / Land Cover: The Geographic Data B.C. Watershed Atlas utilizes the MOFi watershed coding system to summarize and present information. The atlas incorporates road, waterbody and topographic (slope, aspect, and elevation) information from 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and land use / land cover information in 20 broad use / cover classes for units down to 15 ha in size from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps and statistics also document fish distribution and habitat, location of all community watershed as defined under the Forest Practices Code, biogeoclimatic and ecosection zonation, producing mines and mining-related activities and Crown vs private land.

Geographic Data BC has produced a map series and associated spread sheets which utilize the Ministry of Fisheries watershed coding system to summarize and present information on a watersheds basis. Maps incorporate road, water body and topographic (slope, aspect and elevation) information from 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and land use / land cover information in 20 broad use / cover classes for units down to 15 ha in size from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps and statistics also document fish distribution and habitat, location of all designated watersheds, as defined under the Forest Practices Code, biogeoclimatic and ecosection zoning, producing mines and mining-related activities, and Crown versus private land. Some time series information will be available from the next generation of this material, anticipated in 2002. In addition to the basic use / cover data, a number of interpretive themes have also been developed such as percent of watershed logged, percent logging on steep slopes, percent residual old growth, kms of streams logged to bank, road density, road density on steep slopes and road / stream crossing density.

4.5. Summary of Current Status of Monitoring Initiatives

Interviews carried out during the course of this study, with both data users and data providers, indicate that there are very few established monitoring programs, and that other types of environmental information applicable to monitoring programs vary widely in both reliability and



Page 33

spatial coverage. The following tables summarize our interpretation of the current status of environmental monitoring initiatives according to the following six categories:

1) Monitoring programs well established and under continual review. Reliable, time-series information available for 5 years or more.

2) Time-series information exists. Requires compilation and interpretation.

3) Reliable, extensive inventory information exists that could provide a baseline for monitoring.

4) Inventory information fragmented and incomplete, but collected to consistent standards. Could function as a reliable baseline with extended coverage.

5) Inventory information fragmented and collected to inconsistent standards. Does not provide a reliable baseline.

6) Firm initiatives underway to establish monitoring indicators and design monitoring programs.

Atmospheric Environment Monitoring

Environmental Issue


Air Quality 2 1

2 2

Climate Change 1, 6 1 6 6

Terrestrial Environment Monitoring

Environmental Issue


Vegetation 3 3,4,5,6 3,4,5,6 2

Soil 3 4,6 3 2

Wildlife 1 5,6 5,6 2

Terrestrial habitat 3 5,6 5,6 2

Aquatic Environment Monitoring

Environmental Issue


Water Quantity 2 1 2 2

Water Quality 2,3 1 2 2

Fisheries 1 5,6 2 2

Aquatic habitat 3 3,4,5,6 4 2



Land Tenure and Use

Environmental Issue


Land administration.

2 1 2,3 2

Land use/land cover.

3 3

The main conclusions from this summary and the preceding chapter four analysis are:

1) There is very little reliable, time-series monitoring information currently being collected in the province.

2) The demand for such information is increasing on a number of fronts, especially in the areas of environmental trend interpretation and effectiveness monitoring.

3) The few monitoring programs that are currently producing reliable, time-series information (e.g., air, water) are becoming increasingly vulnerable (budget pressures) and this may threaten their effectiveness.

4) There are a number of initiatives underway to begin to collect environmental monitoring information (e.g., vegetation change, wildlife / terrestrial habitat), and these offer the potential to contribute significantly to the supply of reliable, time-series environmental data, provided they can be sustained over time. However, achieving a long-term commitment to these new initiatives may be difficult to achieve unless they are enabled through formalized, non-discretionary business drivers.



Page 35

55.. PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS TTHHAATT IINNTTEERRPPRREETT AANNDD RREEPPOORRTT EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

Aside from monitoring and interpretation of monitoring information that agencies may undertake for their own internal program planning and ongoing resource management decision-making purposes (e.g., hydrometric surveys, monitoring anadromous fish escapements – see chapter 4), there are a number of other existing or proposed initiatives in BC that are major potential users of environmental monitoring data (and certain inventory and research information – see chapter 2 definitions).

These initiatives use environmental monitoring information to interpret and report publicly on environmental, sustainability and effectiveness trends. Most of these initiatives are cross-sectoral in the sense that they analyze and report on trends for multiple environmental resources. For example, MELP’s environmental trends initiative reports on trends for atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land use / condition indicators, as does strategic land use plan effectiveness monitoring and reporting. Other initiatives are somewhat more narrow in scope such as the kind of analysis and reporting that MELP’s Conservation Data Centre does, or LUCO’s tracking of protected area statistics. Some initiatives analyze and report on province-wide environmental trends (e.g., State of the Forest), whereas others are interested in tracking environmental indicators for defined geographic areas (e.g., state of parks, landscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring, or model forest monitoring). The things that all of these trends interpretation/ effectiveness reporting initiatives have in common, however, are that they all:

1) employ environmental indicators to measure trends in environmental quality, or to assess the effectiveness of policies and plans in achieving stated environmental goals and objectives;

2) employ a mix of environmental indicators including: pressure, state, impact and management response indicators;

3) select indicators for which data is generally already available, or there is a prospect of obtaining reasonable data;

4) obtain the environmental data for measuring and assessing their indicators from a diversity of available sources, most likely from multiple agencies. Their sources may include: information from monitoring networks that are designed specifically to generate high quality time-series information; inventory information that is not time-series, but provides a snap-shot of environmental conditions at a particular point in time; research information that is generated from the study of a particular resource(s) at a particular location(s); and various administrative records that are retained in government registries or annual reports that provide a historical record of human activities pertaining to environmental / resource management; and

5) are often reliant on the line-ministry data custodians to help explain or interpret technical information as a basis for ensuring that proper trends interpretation and analysis occurs.



These trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are discussed below and are summarized in Table 4. In addition, Appendix 3 provides a more detailed description of these initiatives.

Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting Initiatives Initiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact

1. Environmental Trends

• province-wide • 15 primary environmental

indicators (land, air, water, natural diversity and ecosystem health), and a number of secondary indicators

• two public reports released to-date (1998 and 2000), with plans to continue to report bi-annually.

Dr. Risa Smith, MELP

2. State of Forests in British Columbia

• province-wide • 40 environmental indicators of

sustainable forest management (plus 40 socio-economic indicators and 12 policy and administration indicators).

• early stages of development; draft list of indicators and proposed monitoring / reporting structure now being considered

Tom Niemann, MOF

3. British Columbia Land Statistics

• province-wide • historical and current statistics

on provincial land base (status, condition and use), including: agriculture, forestry, range, mining, settlement, protected areas, etc.)

• two public reports released to-date (1989 and 1996), with tentative plans to release an updated version(s)

Godfrey Archbold, MELP

4. Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability

• province-wide • ecological health monitoring /

reporting • Commissioner reports to

Legislature

• specifics as yet undetermined, other than commitment to issue bi-annual reports on provincial ecological health, and annual reports on government, ministry and Crown corporation performance against sustainability commitments. Initial focus on “ecological integrity” issue. Environmental Commissioner now being recruited

Maurice Sydor, Office of Auditor General

5. State of Parks in British Columbia

• provincial protected area system (terrestrial and marine)


Lynn Kennedy, MELP

6. Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

• regions / sub-regions (e.g., LRMPs)

• monitoring strategic land use plans’ effectiveness in achieving “desired outcomes” for agriculture, biodiversity, forestry, range, water, wildlife, etc.

• provincial (LUCO) monitoring guidelines / procedures in place

• one monitoring report released (Kamloops); several other IAMC regions developing / considering monitoring indicators and monitoring / reporting structure

Warren Mitchell, LUCO

7. Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

• landscape units • monitoring landscape unit plans’

effectiveness in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives, and associated timber supply impacts


Allan Lidstone, MOF

8. Model Forest Sustainable Forest Management (Local Level) Monitoring

• provincial model forests (McGregor and Long Beach model forests)

• both provincial model forests have developed draft monitoring indicators that are continuing to be refined.

Bodo von Schilling (Long Beach) Kevin Petterson (McGregor)



Page 37

Initiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact

• indicators developed for BC’s model forests have potential application to local-level monitoring at other BC forest management units

• Long Beach model forest would like to report annually

9. Forest Certification Auditing / Monitoring

• forest management units (e.g., TSA or portion of TSA, TFL, woodlot, community forest)

• sustainable forest management as assessed by independent third party using certification standards (i.e., sustainable forest management criteria / indicators) established under various certification systems (e.g. CSA, FSC)

• approximately 10 forest certification approvals issued to-date by independent auditors, with numerous other proposals in stream and growing interest by other forest managers

• FSC regional standards (i.e., performance measures) now being developed

Harry Drage, MOF

Note that in addition to the initiatives listed in Table 4, other organizations are currently considering monitoring approaches for assessing their organizational effectiveness. For example, the Forest Practices Board has expressed an interest in developing indicators for measuring trends in the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving the specific sustainability goals that are identified in the preamble to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. As well, Forest Renewal BC is presently trying to develop indicators as part of its “sustainable forest management (SFM) initiative” that would enable FRBC to track the extent to which its investments are achieving SFM and forest productivity objectives. Finally, individual organizations are interested at varying levels in tracking selected environmental indicators as a basis for meeting their own program responsibilities and / or for strategic planning purposes and / or to fulfill annual (or periodic) reporting requirements.

Note as well that Table 4 excludes national-level environmental / sustainability monitoring initiatives for which some provincial environmental data may be needed. For example, Natural Resources Canada reports periodically on the State of Canada’s Forests1 and this report benefits from BC contributions of forest-related information. Similarly, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers reports periodically on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in Canada2 and provincial level inputs to the national forestry database are needed for this purpose (e.g., provincial data that is / will be entered into the national forest information system according to CCFM obligations). Also, Environment Canada’s Pacific and Yukon Region Environmental Indicators initiative3 provides public reporting on various measures of BC’s environmental quality (e.g., marine ecosystems, species health, toxic contaminants, climate change, urban air quality, stratospheric ozone depletion, and water use and quality). These indicators too may benefit from the availability of certain provincial information.

1 The State of Canada’s Forests. 1999 – 2000 Forests in the New Millennium. Available at http://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/sof/common/latest.shtml 2 Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. National Status 2000. Available at http://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/ci/indica_e.html 3 Environment Canada. Pacific and Yukon Region Environmental Indicators. Available at www.ecoinfo.org/env_ind/default.htm



Analysis of Information Requirements

Appendix 4 provides the master list of environmental indicators and associated environmental information that provincial agencies have identified that they need for trends interpretation, effectiveness reporting, and strategic planning or program delivery purposes. We stress, however, that this statement of need is preliminary for a number of agencies / initiatives. Many agencies that are involved in these activities are at an early stage of developing assessment indicators and reporting methodologies / systems. The listings in Appendix 4 must, therefore, be seen as tentative and subject to change. Note also that this list excludes social and economic indicators that may be related to environmental condition. Nonetheless, if we accept that Appendix 4 represents an approximate current picture of agencies’ environmental information needs for these purposes, a number of observations can be derived from this Appendix 4, as discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Number and Type of Environmental Indicators that Provincial Agencies Want To Track

In total, provincial agencies are interested in measuring trends for 226 indicators of environmental quality4. Table 5 provides a breakdown according to resource category and indicator type (pressure, condition, impact and response).

Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information

Resource Category Pressure Condition Impact Response Total

Atmospheric Resources 8 6 7 1 22 Aquatic Resources 11 15 13 14 53 Cultural / Heritage Resources

1 0 0 2 3

Land / Resource Use 25 20 6 22 73 Terrestrial Resources 16 37 13 9 75

Total 61 78 39 48 226

Although 226 indicators have been identified during this study, more than one provincial initiative (agency) is typically interested in measuring most indicators. If this multiple interest in indicators is taken into account, there could be an aggregate tracking / interpretation (and in most cases also public reporting) on about 346 environmental / resource indicators in BC – see Table 6. This does not include trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives that will be applied to multiple monitoring / reporting units (e.g., LRMPs, landscape units, forest management units in the case of forest certification). Nor does it include any existing federal initiatives, or new initiatives such as the proposed BC Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability.

4 Note that many of these indicators are at an early stage of consideration by agencies. This number does not reflect final determinations of indicators that will be measured and reported on over time by provincial agencies.



Page 39

Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators

Initiative No. Indicators

Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 59 CCFM criteria & indicators of Sustainable Forest Management 54 Model Forest Monitoring 48 State of Forests 46 Environmental Trends 37 Agency strategic planning purposes 32 Forest Certification 27 British Columbia Land Statistics 23 State of Parks 11 Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 9 total 346

At present, only a few provincial initiatives have actual experience in tracking and reporting on environmental indicators (i.e., MELP’s Environmental Trends and BC Land Statistics initiatives, and a few forest certification initiatives). The other initiatives are under development and are expected to “roll out” in the near term. Quite clearly, the whole field of environmental and sustainability trends / effectiveness reporting is poised for explosive growth in BC. This will be particularly true if the requirements of the Budget Accountability and Transparency Act are fully implemented. This raises questions about: (1) the need for so much trends / effectiveness reporting activity by so many organizations; and (2) assuming that this level of need can be rationalized, the ability to adequately support this level of activity with adequate time-series environmental information. These issues are discussed further in following sections.

As can be seen from Table 5, the greatest demand is for environmental information to support the use of indicators that pertain to land and resource use (73 indicators), and for terrestrial resources (75 indicators). Each of these categories represents about 32% of all indicators, and in total account for 64% of all indicators. The high level of interest in land and resource use indicators is likely explained in part by the relative availability of existing information to measure land / resource use characteristics (i.e., 47 of the 73 land and resource use indicators are for pressure and response indicators, for which information is generally more available than condition or impact indicators). In the terrestrial resources category, the main interest lies in measuring forest vegetation attributes (52 of 75 indicators), as discussed further in 5.2 below.

In terms of indicator types, the greatest demand is for condition indicators (78 out of 226, or 35%). This is also not too surprising, given that most environmental trends and effectiveness monitoring initiatives would prefer, if possible, to measure the actual condition or state of environmental resources, as this provides the best representation of actual environmental outcomes. Other types of indicators (i.e., pressure, impact and response) are often selected for use in trends / effectiveness monitoring and reporting programs due to the lack of data that can be used to describe ultimate environmental condition.

There is, however, an argument to be made in favour of measuring and reporting on some of all four indicator types, as this provides a more complete picture for environmental decision-making purposes. Pressure indicators define the nature and extent of environmental stressors; impact



indicators provide insights into the environmental impacts that result from the stressors; condition indicators identify the ultimate state of environmental resources as a result of stressors and impacts; and response indicators shed light on what is being done to address environmental issues – see chapter 2 for further detail. In general terms, it would appear that, among BC’s various environmental trends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives, there is a suitable mix / balance in indicator type.

5.2. Environmental Information Priorities

The full description of provincial agencies’ information requirements is provided in Appendix 4. From that appendix and also from Tables 7 and 8, it is possible to draw out a few highlights regarding the key environmental information priorities for trends interpretation, effectiveness reporting and agencies’ strategic planning purposes.

The greatest evident “need” (as inferred from the environmental indicators that agencies wish to track over time) is for access to information for measuring indicators related to forest vegetation and forest land use activities. This high level of interest is not surprising, given the number of trends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives that relate to sustainable forest management, at a range of geographic levels. Provincial agencies would like to measure and report on 72 indicators in the forest vegetation and forest land use categories. Of these, 36 are condition indicators, 16 are pressure, 6 are impact, and 14 are response indicators.

The specific types of information required to measure trends in forest vegetation and forest land use activity is highly varied. For example, condition information is needed on: forest productivity, the broad spatial composition of forests such as the distribution of forest types, ages, patches / gaps, and structural attributes of forests such as biomass levels and extent of coarse woody debris. As well, various information are needed to report on forest ecosystem stressors (e.g., fire, disease, harvesting rates / locations, roading, exotics, land conversion), and forest management responses (e.g., restoration, forest land reserve).

In general terms, the level of detail of required forestry-oriented information appears to be roughly commensurate with the geographic scope of the monitoring initiatives. For example, local monitoring initiatives such as forest certification or model forest monitoring are more interested in stand-level forest attributes (i.e., structural attributes) than are provincial-level monitoring initiatives where information on general spatial patterns is of more interest. This stands to reason and reflects the greater ability of more localized monitoring initiatives, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, to collect more detailed information for smaller geographic areas.



Page 41

Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme

Category Theme No. Indicators Atmospheric Air Quality 10 Climate Change 12 sub-total 22 Aquatic Fish 13 Water Quality 18 Water Quantity 8 Water Use 8 Habitat 6 sub-total 50 Cultural/Heritage 3 Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13 Conservation Land 3 Forest Land 20 Planning 3 Tenures 2 Mining & Energy 4 Pesticides & Toxics 4 Protected Areas 8 Recreation & Tourism 8 Solid Waste 1 Transportation / Utilities 2 Settlements 5

sub-total 73 Terrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52 Wildlife 14 Soils 9

subtotal 75 total 226



Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order

Category Theme No. Indicators

Terrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52 Land/Resource Use Forest Land 20 Aquatic Water Quality 18 Terrestrial Wildlife 14 Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13

above 5 information categories / themes account for over one-half of all indicators and associated information needs sub-total 117

Aquatic Fish 13 Atmospheric Climate Change 12 Atmospheric Air Quality 10 Terrestrial Soils 9 Land/Resource Use Recreation & Tourism 8 Land/Resource Use Protected Areas 8 Aquatic Water Use 8 Aquatic Water Quantity 8 Aquatic Habitat 6 Land/Resource Use Settlements 5 Land/Resource Use Pesticides & Toxics 4 Land/Resource Use Mining & Energy 4 Cultural/Heritage 3 Land/Resource Use Planning 3 Land/Resource Use Tenures 2 Land/Resource Use Conservation Land 2 Land/Resource Use Transportation / Utilities 2 Land/Resource Use Solid Waste 1 total 226

Second to information on forest vegetation and forest land use, the next greatest business need, as interpreted from the number of existing or proposed monitoring indicators (see Tables 7 and 8), is for technical information on aquatic resources. Fifty indicators of fish, water quantity / quality / use, and aquatic habitat have been identified. Over half of these are for information pertaining to the condition of water resources or impacts on water resources. Twenty-two atmospheric indicators of air quality and climate change are identified, also mainly in the condition and impact indicator categories.

Half of all identified indicators and associated information requirements relate to only five resource categories / themes: forest vegetation, forest land use, water quality, wildlife, and agriculture / rangeland use. The other half of information requirements pertain to the other 18 resource categories / themes (see Table 8).

Getting more specific, some environmental indicators and associated information needs are more in demand than others. Table 9 shows that, while almost 60% of indicators are being



Page 43

implemented / proposed by only one initiative (agency), the remainder are being implemented / proposed for use in more than one initiative.

Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives

Number of indicators being applied / proposed by ONE initiative 134 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by TWO initiatives 49 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by THREE initiatives 26 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FOUR initiatives 10 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FIVE initiatives 5 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SIX initiatives 1 Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SEVEN initiatives 1

total 226

The single piece of information that is clearly in greatest demand from provincial agencies for trends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring / reporting purposes is information on ecosystem protection in BC — in particular, the extent to which BC’s ecosystems (BEC zones / eco-sections) are represented in protection status. Seven separate initiatives, at various geographic scales, are interested in this reporting measure, namely: Environmental Trends (MELP), State of Parks (MELP), LUCO’s protected area system (PAS) monitoring and reporting initiative; strategic land use plan monitoring at the regional / sub-regional level; CCFM criteria and indicators monitoring and reporting at the national level; and forest certification monitoring and model forest monitoring, although the interest of these last two initiatives is in tracking “protected” areas within “working” forest management units. In addition, the State of Forests initiative is interested in ecosystem protection information in so far as the level to which forest types and ages are represented in protected area status.

Table 10 identifies the indicators / information requirements that four or more provincial trends interpretation, effectiveness reporting or strategic planning initiatives are, or are interested in, pursuing (i.e., approximately the top ten percent of all indicators). If level of agency demand is accepted as the sole criterion, then the information requirements identified in Table 10 could be assumed to be the provincial corporate priorities for information provision. While Table 10 is of interest in showing relative level of demand for information, it would be a mistake to necessarily conclude that these are, in fact, the province’s information priorities for generating environmental monitoring information. It is likely that the information in these categories is what is readily available for these purposes, and that this has influenced agency selection of indicators. Also, as mentioned earlier, many of agencies’ proposed indicators are not finalized, and associated information needs may shift as their indicator selections become firm.

In addition, the monitoring indicators and associated information needs shown in Appendix 4 and Table 10 are essentially a reflection of individual sectors’ programs. These, in turn, reflect agency or program mandates. There has not been a cross-sectoral, integrated assessment of sustainability monitoring and reporting requirements that define government’s corporate list of environmental indicators and information needs. In 1995/96 the Commission on Resources and Environment started on such an initiative, but was unable to complete it before being dissolved. Although it remains to be seen, the proposed Commissioner of Environment and Sustainability may be able to encourage a more corporate perspective, and this may allow a more definitive description of environmental information requirements.



Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest Demand

Level of Demand

Resource Category

Resource Theme Information Requirements

7 initiatives Ecosystem Protection

ecosystem representation

percent of area of BC ecosystems (BEC, Eco-sections) in protected status

6 initiatives Landscape Fragmentation

road density on forest land

km per km2 of roads, reported by various land units (e.g., watersheds, zones, landscape units)

5 initiatives Protected Lands amount of BC in protected status

total terrestrial and marine areas secured in protected area status by federal and provincial designations.

Climate Change temperature trends temperature “sums” and other meteorological parameters (e.g., precipitation)

Forest Type and Age

forest age class / old growth distribution

area of forest that occurs in various forest age classes (e.g., 1-40 years, 41-80 years, etc.), by forest type (e.g., dominant species). Also, areas of old growth, younger forest, and non-forest; amount of old growth that is accessible for timber harvesting, amount inaccessible for timber harvesting, and amount protected.

Timber Harvest approved versus actual harvest levels

total provincial AAC and actual harvest levels per type of regulated forest – province-wide and by management units. Also, actual harvest on regulated land versus harvest on unregulated land.

Forest Species at Risk

rare, threatened and endangered species

percentage of known forest-dependent or grassland-associated species (fish, amphibians, mammals, plants, birds, reptiles) that are red- or blue-listed.

4 initiatives Surface Water Quality

water quality index water quality index results at monitoring sites (reported as improving, deteriorating, or no change in quality), reported by watershed grouping. Also, other unspecified water chemistry parameters

Surface Water Quality

turbidity turbidity in watersheds (or selected sampling sites). Also, turbidity in paired watersheds, with and without logging.

Forest Recreation Facilities

sites and trails number of forest recreation sites an km of recreation trails, province-wide and by region

Protected Forest forest age per age class, by forest type in protected status

area of various forest age classes, by forest type that are in protected status, and percent of total provincial forest in those age classes / types that are protected

Old Growth protected old growth forest

area of old growth versus younger forest and non-forest land in protected status, by BEC zone. Percent of protected old growth of total old growth. Also, area of old growth forest retained, by BEC, by landscape units (and at forest level) compared to biodiversity guidebook old growth retention targets

Forest Disturbance

amount of forest disturbed

area of forest disturbed by fire (natural and human-caused) versus pests, versus harvesting.

Harvesting Systems

area of timber harvest using different harvesting systems

forest land area subject to clear cutting versus alternative harvesting systems

Forest Regeneration

forest regeneration method and timing

area regenerated by natural versus artificial means. Also, area not regenerated within ten or more years following harvest

Threat to Species at Risk

land use threats to threatened and endangered vertebrates

relative importance of various threats to red-listed (including riparian) vertebrates, and forest-dependent species

Viability of Selected Species

historical range in which species are extirpated or declining

percentage of historical range in which selected species (caribou, sharp-tailed rouse, mule/black-tailed deer, moose, grizzly bear) are extirpated versus declining. Also “observed changes” in fauna.



Page 45

5.3. Overlapping Indicators and Initiatives

As discussed above, Appendix 4 shows that agencies have an interest in tracking 226 environmental indicators in 22 resource categories. In one category (forest vegetation resources) 50 separate indicators are identified, while another 20 are identified for forest land use activities. While these are the most extreme examples, there is interest in tracking ten or more indicators in seven other resource categories. While these numbers may be justified, they raise the question of whether or not so many indicators are needed, particularly in certain resource categories, to gain a sufficient understanding of the environmental issues.

As well, is it necessary for there to be so much overlap for so many indicators, as is evidenced by the fact that 40% of all indicators are being implemented / pursued by more than one initiative (agency)? Even though a lot of this overlap can be explained by the fact that the same indicator is being reported on at different geographic scales, there still appears to be enough of an overlap issue to question the efficiency of a “silo” approach to developing and implementing trends interpretation / effectiveness monitoring initiatives.

Responding to these questions lies well outside the terms-of-reference of this study. They are raised here only because the study data draws attention to them, and because they are the sorts of questions that LIICC will no doubt want to consider in the development of a corporate environmental baseline system.



Page 47

66.. KKEEYY IISSSSUUEESS,, CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDD RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

6.1. Summary of Key Issues

Supply – Demand Imbalance: In BC, as in many other jurisdictions, there have traditionally been only a relatively small number of agency programs that produce environmental monitoring information. These are agencies with traditional, “core” resource management / regulatory responsibilities where monitoring data has been required mainly as a context for permitting / licensing decisions. For example, MELP’s air / water quality and water flow monitoring programs; DFO’s monitoring programs for fish abundance have been driven out of their regulatory responsibilities.

Recently, however, there is rapidly increasing interest from other agencies / initiatives to access programs’ monitoring information – mainly for sustainability trends interpretation and effectiveness assessment purposes, and to respond to national / international initiatives that require environmental monitoring data (e.g., Montreal process for sustainable forest management, Kyoto protocol on climate change, biodiversity convention). In the absence of good time-series environmental monitoring information, these initiatives use various environmental inventory and research information, but they would ideally prefer reliable and repeatable monitoring information that has been derived from proper monitoring networks. There is a growing divergence between the demand for high quality, time-series environmental monitoring information and the availability of it.

Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: One of the main reasons why environmental monitoring has / is limited is because it is a discretionary activity that must compete with other environmental management initiatives for scarce budget dollars. Resource inventories are more amenable to “slugs” of money that may become available, whereas environmental monitoring requires an ongoing, long-term, and disciplined commitment that does not fit well with the cyclical nature of political priorities and associated budget allocations. If we are to lessen the gap between environmental monitoring supply and demand, there will be need for a much stronger provincial commitment to environmental monitoring. This could possibly take the form of some legalized requirements for identifying and reporting on performance measures (for example, such as those identified in the new Budget Transparency and Accountability Act), the increasing significance of national / international protocols (e.g., Kyoto), or potentially the creation of some standing institution that has a responsibility for coordinating environmental monitoring investments.

Technical Capacity for Managing and Interpreting Environmental Monitoring Data: Agency programs that are implementing environmental monitoring networks are doing so to generate data that is needed for their own regulatory purposes. As such, only certain data is collected and it is collected in a way that is relevant to the program needs. Non-program users of environmental monitoring data (e.g., trends interpretation



initiatives) may be able to directly employ program data, but they often need the data to be varied and / or interpreted to suit their own particular requirements. Data providers are increasingly being called on to manipulate and interpret their data to service the needs of other users. There is the potential that limited program staff will be unavailable to fulfill this demand and that non-program data users will perform their own interpretation and analysis of technical data that they do not fully understand, which could lead to inaccurate reporting.

Technical Capacity for Designing and Implementing Environmental Monitoring Systems: Designing and implementing environmental monitoring sampling systems that produce statistically valid and credible data requires a high level of technical expertise. So too does the proper management and interpretation of the resultant data. In recent years, this capacity has been significantly eroded in most of BC’s resource management agencies, mainly as a result of program reductions and retirement of staff that have not been replaced. If government wishes to respond to the increasing demand for high quality environmental monitoring data, these technical capacity gaps will have to be addressed. It is likely that there will have to be an increasing involvement of academics and consulting experts to help with the design and delivery of monitoring networks, and also the management and interpretation of monitoring data.

Indicator Proliferation: There is an explosion in the number and type of specific environmental indicators that agencies want to track over time. There are two issues associated with this proliferation. Firstly, it is unlikely that we need so many indicators, many of which are only slightly different from each other, in order to understand BC’s environmental quality, although this is perhaps questionable since there has been no coordinated, corporate assessment of what core environmental indicators should be measured. Secondly, there are overlaps among agencies / initiatives that are interested in tracking the same indicators, or minor variations on an indicator. This creates a potential inefficiency (and also overload problems for data providers - see above capacity issue.)

Lack of Coordination: Past and existing environmental monitoring initiatives have all evolved independently as agencies have pursued initiatives in relation to their specific mandated responsibilities. Whereas this has historically not presented too many problems — because monitoring information was being developed and used almost exclusively by agencies for program delivery purposes — the broadening interest in acquiring environmental monitoring data for trends and effectiveness interpretation purposes suggests that a far higher level of inter-agency coordination in developing monitoring systems will be needed.

The primary responsibility for collecting monitoring data will almost certainly continue to reside with the agencies with program delivery responsibilities (i.e., Air, Wildlife, Water, Resource Inventory branches). However, the other agencies with an interest in monitoring data (e.g., Ministry of Health in the case of air quality data; regional health officers in the case of water quality data; BC Parks, BC Wildlife, forest certification applicants in the case of vegetation change inventory data) need to be able to input into and shape the design of monitoring systems that can measure environmental parameters that are important to them. Presently, there is no good forum that enables coordinated decisions — for example, coordinated decision-making on: a core set of



Page 49

environmental indicators that are the corporate priority for information capture; the standards for measuring and reporting on those indicators; roles and responsibilities for data interpretation; mechanisms for data access / distribution, etc.

Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmental conditions is to improve the quality / effectiveness of environmental management decision-making. To-date, however, there are few bridges between the results / findings of environmental monitoring and the policy responses of decision-makers. The “pressure-state-impact-management response” model for selecting environmental indicators provides a useful framework for establishing the needed bridges; more formalized incorporation of that framework within ministries’ strategic planning initiatives would be valuable.

Opportunities for Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BC with an interest in collecting environmental monitoring data. The federal government has important environmental monitoring responsibilities, as do local governments, First Nations governments, universities and institutes and the private sector. Without coordination among all of these players there lies the potential for major inefficiency and overlap in monitoring, interpretation and reporting. Any initiatives that are adopted to increase coordination and to adopt corporate governance of environmental monitoring systems will need to take into account non-provincial initiatives and requirements.

6.2. Conclusions and Recommendations

Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information

Whereas the demand for environmental monitoring information is high and growing, the supply is low and has historically been shrinking. BC has plenty of environmental data, but it is generally not the right kind that is needed for interpreting trends in environmental condition or for assessing program / policy / plan effectiveness. BC mainly has inventory data, as opposed to monitoring (i.e., time-series) data. Although the need for improvements in the supply of environmental monitoring data is being increasingly recognized and some action is being taken (e.g., vegetation change monitoring) it remains to be seen if provincial environmental monitoring programs can be sustained over time. This is because there are few, if any, senior-level, formal commitments to undertake long-term environmental monitoring. Historical and current business drivers behind environmental monitoring programs are informal and non-obligatory. As a result, they are highly vulnerable to competing spending priorities.

Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal business drivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.

Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems

There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmental monitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. Program-



level monitoring activities need to be more closely linked to trends interpretation / effectiveness monitoring initiatives. A corporate forum is needed to answer questions like: “What resources / issues should we be monitoring with our limited environmental monitoring budgets: air quality, drinking water, sustainable forest management, biodiversity, etc.”; What technical standards will be applied in the collection and application of monitoring data; How will data be accessed? Who will be responsible for interpretation and reporting-out on the findings; etc? ”

Agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information that will permit them to track trends in various environmental parameters have not been rationalized in relation to government’s broader corporate priorities. As a result, we see multiple agencies proceeding independently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimes overlapping, data acquisition implications. Do we really need all of these independent trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives in order to provide decision-makers with an adequate understanding of environmental conditions? Can we combine some of these initiatives, or somehow create better linkages among them, so that we are measuring / tracking fewer environmental criteria and indicators? If it was possible to do some ranking and integration through a corporate institutional mechanism, then costs of environmental monitoring data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting should be reduced; gap and overlap issues addressed; and risks associated with conflicting interpretations of monitoring data reduced.

The importance of taking a corporate perspective in inventory programs for efficiency and effectiveness reasons has been explicitly recognized in BC, as evidenced by the CRII and RIC initiatives – why not do the same for environmental monitoring initiatives?

Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly brought under the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure. Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — the coordinating body should include representatives from all parties with a monitoring interest (federal, First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities and institutes; private sector).

Partnering Opportunities

The province’s internal capacity for designing and implementing environmental monitoring programs that are capable of producing high quality, statistically-valid results is limited, and may reasonably be expected to remain that way. Government should be looking for ways to enhance the availability of monitoring data by involving outside organizations / interests in designing monitoring systems and collecting and interpreting monitoring results. This would require a highly coordinated approach (see above recommendation).

Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels of government, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging a cost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental monitoring information.



Page 51

Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes

Recent increases in trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are all aimed ultimately at improving environmental sustainability. These initiatives are based on the presumption that the findings that they produce will be used by decision-makers to change laws or policies, or to trigger new or amended plans or programs. Yet, we see little evidence that there are, in fact, any good mechanisms to ensure that environmental monitoring investments actually feed into environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, the entire motivation for environmental monitoring, and the public investment into it, is in question. The new Budget Transparency and Accountability Act should help to produce a better link between monitoring of performance indicators and strategic level environmental decision-making, although the extent to which this occurs will depend on the performance measures that the environmental / resource management agencies set for themselves.

Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a “corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options for ensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actually integrated into environmental decision-making.



Page 53

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 11:: SSUURRVVEEYY QQUUEESSTTIIOONNNNAAIIRREE

The following questions were asked of agency contacts to determining the environmental information that agencies need to support their environmental monitoring initiatives:5

1. What environmental monitoring1 initiatives is your division/branch currently involved in, or contemplating? Describe objectives and scope of monitoring initiative (e.g., purpose, monitoring scale, reporting frequency, audience, funding source, staffing / organization, etc.)

2. Why are you engaged in this monitoring activity? (E.g., to comply with legislation, meet an international or national level commitment, meet an internal programming or planning commitment, etc.?)

3. What basic question(s) are your monitoring initiatives attempting to answer?

4. What environmental criteria/indicators do you use (or want to use) to answer your questions, in number 3 above?

5. What data do you require in order to measure these criteria/indicators, and where do you currently (or expect to) obtain this data?

6. How adequate is the data that you currently use, or expect to use? (E.g., is desired data available? If so, is it reliable, current, correct scale, etc.?)

7. What key things should the providers of environmental information be doing to support users who require information for strategic-level environmental monitoring purposes?

5 Environmental monitoring, in this case, measures environmental condition relative to long-term environmental management goals / objectives, and when measured in time series determines trends in condition. Monitoring findings allow environmental managers to compare current conditions to past conditions, and to the desired future condition. Results may be used by decision-makers to reinforce management actions or to suggest modified management actions, as a basis for constructing a management system that is capable of achieving the desired environmental outcomes.



Page 55

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 22:: SSTTUUDDYY CCOONNTTAACCTTSS

The following individuals were contacted to obtain information on agencies’ environmental monitoring initiatives and associated information requirements. Comments were provided by personal / telephone interviews or by written submission.

ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAME

Provincial Ministries

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Implementation and Settlement Legislation Branch

Peter Nakken

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Resource Planning Branch Rob Menes

Ministry of Energy and Mines, Southwest Regional Office Ted Hall Kootenay Regional Office Andrew Whale

BC Geological Survey Ray Lett

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Executive Margaret Ekenfelder, Rodger Hunter

Air Resources Branch Lynn Bailey, Hu Wallis, Liz Lilley, Bob Beatty, Robert Marsh, Warren Bell, Rick Williams

Corporate Policy Branch Dr. Risa Smith, Lee Thiessen Crown Lands Branch Godfrey Archbold, Neil Hamilton, Eric Geographic Data BC Malcolm Gray, Bill Anderson

Habitat Branch Rod Davis, Dr. Jenny Feick Parks Division Denis Moffat

Pollution Prevention Ron Driedger, Doug Walton, Dave Douglas, Harry Vogt

Resource Inventory Branch Fern Schultz, Ted Lea, Wilf Dreher, Bruce Letvak, Andrew Harcombe

Water Management Branch Jim Mattison

Ministry of Fisheries Fisheries Management Branch Jamie Alley

Information Services Branch Peter Lewis Sustainable Economic Development Branch Al Martin

Ministry of Forests Corporate Policy and Planning Branch Sue Stephen

Forest Practices Branch Tom Niemann Forest Practices Branch Tom Hall Forest Practices Branch Shane Ford Forest Practices Branch Harry Drage

Resources Inventory Branch Jon Vivian Kamloops District Office Gary Reay

Kamloops Regional Office Peter Lishman



ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAME

Ministry of Health Public Health Protection Branch Barry Boettger

Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch Dr. Ray Copes

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Growth Strategies Office Erik Karlsen

Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Tourism Policy and Land Use Branch

Dick Butler, Nancy South, Stephen Connally

Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Engineering Branch Mike Kent

Other Agencies

BC Hydro Louise Goullet

Environmental Assessment Office Jan Hagen

Fisheries Renewal BC Angus Mackay

Forest Practices Board Grant Loeb

Forest Renewal BC Janet Gagne

Green Economy Initiative Ken Baker, Lawrence Alexander

Land Reserve Commission Julie Glover

Land Use Coordination Office, Vancouver Island IAMC Lindsay Jones

Land Use Coordination Office, Prince Rupert IAMC Elizabeth Zweck and Tom Chamberlain (consultant)

Land Use Coordination Office Warren Mitchell

Long Beach Model Forest Bodo von Shilling

MacGregor Model Forest Kevin Petterson

Note: names listed in a group were interviewed together.



Page 57

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 33:: PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL TTRREENNDDSS IINNTTEERRPPRREETTAATTIIOONN // EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEENNEESSSS RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS

This appendix provides an overview of the main provincial environmental trends interpretation and effectiveness reporting initiatives that are currently being implemented or developed in BC. Each initiative is described in terms of its basic purpose, business driver, key characteristics, current status, and the responsible government agency and contact person.

1. Environmental Trends in British Columbia

Purpose of Initiative: Three objectives are identified in the Environmental Trends in British Columbia 2000 report: (1) provide an overview of the condition of BC’s environment, important links between seemingly disparate issues, and a picture of the way in which British Columbians are collectively responding to environmental challenges; (2) measure progress towards the Ministry’s goals; and (3) respond to the BC Auditor General’s calls for enhanced accountability of government by developing performance measures that focus on the ultimate outcomes of government efforts.

Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven, and is reflected in the Ministry’s annual business plan.

Key Characteristics: Fifteen indicators of environmental condition are reported: green economy, protected areas, domestic waste, air quality from fine particulates, greenhouse gases, effects of global warming, surface water quality, groundwater quality, water use, species at risk, forest species, wildlife species, status of fish stocks, development in riparian ecosystems, and toxic contaminants.

The focus is on trends in condition, as opposed to measurement of pressure or response indicators. Available data is assembled to support the indicator reporting from a wide variety of existing and historical sources. No environmental monitoring programs are being implemented to produce data specifically for the purposes of this initiative.

Status: To date, two Environmental Trends Reports have been released: 1998 and 2000. The intent is to continue to release reports on a bi-annual interval and thereby continue to build a time-series picture of environmental condition in BC.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, State of Environment Office, Dr. Risa Smith.

2. State of the Forest in British Columbia

Purpose of Initiative: The October 6, 2000 mock-up draft of the State of the Forest in British Columbia 2001 report identifies a series of objectives for this initiative:



• demonstrate accountability for outcomes

• provide an overview of the current state of BC’s forests with factual information on the topics of greatest interest to domestic and international audiences,

• show the trends of important indicators of sustainability

• provide MOF interpretation and analysis of the facts and trends

• summarize MOF balanced conclusions and actions to ensure sustainability,

• stimulate and inform public discussion of sustainable forest management,

• motivate public and private action to ensure sustainability

• provide links to other local, provincial, national and international efforts to ensure sustainability

• facilitate access to more detailed information

• identify gaps in information and knowledge

Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven. It is linked to the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ initiative to define and report on sustainable forest management (CCFM criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management). It is also driven out of a need for BC to be able to provide factual, objective information on provincial forest management outcomes in response to ongoing questions and criticisms about those outcomes.

Key Characteristics: The initiative is currently being developed. Decisions on indicator selection and methodologies, reporting frequency, roles and responsibilities, etc. have not been finalized. The initial thinking is to report on 40 environmental indicators of sustainable forest management (in 10 categories), 40 socio-economic indicators (in 10 categories) that relate to forest management and use, and 12 policy and administration indicators (in 6 categories). The environmental and socio-economic indicators would emphasize “outcomes” whereas the policy and administration indicators would emphasize “input, output and process indicators”. Examples of proposed environmental indicators of sustainable forest management include: AREA OF forest PER age class by dominant forest species, area of old growth forest, area of land use conversion, area of forest per age class in protected status, area of forest disturbance from fires, pests and harvesting, area of riparian zone disturbed, threatened or endangered species, number of exotic species, areas planted with genetically improved and hybrid tree species, turbidity, distribution of fine particulates from prescribed fires and forest industry mills, carbon stock changes.

The focus would be on reporting recent and historical trends for each indicator, to the extent that data is available to support indicator reports. No new monitoring programs are being contemplated for delivering this initiative, although data from the MOF program for monitoring change in vegetative conditions will be employed. Other data requirements are expected to come from an array of existing sources, primarily housed within the Ministry of Forests, although final assessments of data availability and reliability have not been made.



Page 59

Status: Under development; no written reports on indicators have been generated, other than for several “mock ups”. Draft indicators, as above, are being considered / refined.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Tom Niemann.

3. British Columbia Land Statistics

Purpose of Initiative: To provide a synopsis of historical and current statistics pertaining to the administration of Crown land, and to give an overview of specific resource uses

Business Driver: The initiative is policy-based. MELP has prepared this document out of a perceived need to track high-level statistics on land use / land administration activities.

Key Characteristics: The BC Land Statistics document provides information on a variety of land administration and land uses, including: general land status, amount of land in private ownership, area of Crown land tenures, agricultural land and land use, forest land productivity, timber harvesting, rangeland status, protected area status, heritage land, petroleum and natural gas lands and tenures, and settlement lands. Thirty-six statistical tables are provided, together with interpretation of the data. The information has been compiled from a wide variety of sources.

Status: MELP has released two versions of this report for two points in time: 1989 and 1996. There is no pre-defined reporting interval for future releases of the document, although MELP has expressed a desire to proceed with a third release in the near term.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Crown Lands Branch, Neil Hamilton.

4. State of British Columbia’s Parks

Purpose of Initiative: Report on the extent to which BC’s protected area system goals for ecological integrity, recreational resources and cultural-heritage resources are being achieved over time; and provide the ability to assess how well park management and administrative techniques are working to sustain the protected area system.

Business Driver: It is expected that legislation will provide the driver for State of the Parks reporting, although such legislation is not yet in place. This expectation arises out of government’s acceptance of recommendations made by the BC Parks Legacy Panel in 1999. The Panel suggested that legislation be enacted to publicly report on the State of the BC Parks every three years.

Key Characteristics: The initiative envisions the development and application of a number of key indicators for assessing how effective management efforts in provincial protected areas are in achieving protected area system goals (for ecological, recreational, and cultural-heritage resources). The indicators would be applied within protected areas and would be system wide. It’s expected that the initiative would largely parallel the



federal State of the Parks monitoring / reporting program. It is unknown at this time if the program would initiate systematic, time-series data collection to support the program, however, indications to-date are that BC Parks would be more interested in selecting indicators for which existing data exists.

Status: This initiative is presently being considered by BC Parks. Some preliminary work has been done on potential indicators. Thirteen tentative indicators were proposed in a 1999 consultant’s study for BC Parks’ consideration: 7 indicators pertaining to ecological integrity, 3 to recreational values, 1 to cultural-heritage values, and 2 to economics. These indicators were proposed on the basis (among other things) that existing data was generally available to enable reporting on the majority of the suggested indicators. Examples of potential environmental indicators include: amount of BC in protected status, ecosystem representation, connectivity among protected areas, species at risk, ecological restoration efforts, water quality, and risk to natural / recreational values.

Timing for final development and implementation is uncertain.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, BC Parks, Lynn Kennedy.

5. Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: Assess the extent to which goals and objectives contained in Strategic Land Use Plans (i.e., LRMPs, regional plans) are being achieved over time.

Business Driver: Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) monitoring / reporting is driven by the plan monitoring provisions that are contained in individual approved SLUPs. Inter-agency Management Committees (IAMCs) are responsible for monitoring and reporting on plan implementation status and effectiveness for the plans located within their IAMC region. They undertake plan monitoring in accordance with general policy and procedural direction from the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). In 1999, LUCO published a “Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans” and in 2000 released a set of procedures that advise staff on monitoring / reporting methods.

Key Characteristics: Each LRMP contains its own provisions directing how the plan will be monitored to assess (1) the extent to which plan commitments have been implemented, and (2) the extent to which plan goals and objectives are being achieved over time. The intent is to report annually on plan implementation status, and every 3 to 5 years on plan effectiveness. LUCO’s policy is that IAMCs should select and apply effectiveness monitoring indicators for which existing data is generally available. Therefore, no special, plan-specific data collection / monitoring programs are envisioned to support the SLUP monitoring initiative.

Status: The Kamloops IAMC, having produced one of the earliest LRMPs, has progressed furthest on SLUP monitoring and reporting. In 2000 they released an effectiveness monitoring report that assessed conditions in the plan area as of 1999 using 69 indicators: 28 indicators for environmental resources and 41 for human activities related to resource use.



Page 61

Other IAMCs are considering / developing programs to monitor SLUP implementation status and overall plan effectiveness. For example, the Prince Rupert IAMC has formed a regional monitoring coordinating group that is currently developing a proposed suite of effectiveness monitoring indicators that individual LRMP Tables (Bulkley, Kispiox, Lakes and Casiar LRMPs) may select from. The Lakes and Maurice Districts are part of an Innovative Forest Practices Agreement pilot project that will develop indicators as part of their sustainable forest management planning process. As another example, the Vancouver Island IAMC has developed a tentative list of 32 indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the Vancouver Island Regional Land Use Plan.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Land Use Coordination Office, Warren Mitchell.

6. Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: To determine the extent to which landscape unit plans have been completed according to established landscape unit planning procedures (i.e., program or compliance monitoring); and to determine the overall effectiveness of the plans in achieving underlying program goals (i.e., effectiveness monitoring).

Business Driver: Ministry of Forests’ and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks’ policy is the business driver, although the sustainable forest use goals defined in the preamble of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provide the context for the effectiveness monitoring component of the landscape unit plan monitoring initiative, specifically the biodiversity conservation goal. The two ministries have prepared a Landscape Unit Planning Guide (an official Forest Practices Code guide book) that references a policy commitment to monitoring the effectiveness of landscape unit plans.

Key Characteristics: This monitoring initiative would primarily assess the extent to which biodiversity conservation is being achieved at the landscape level and, to a lesser degree, the stand level. There are approximately 1,300 landscape units defined for British Columbia. As the monitoring program is in the early stages of development, it is not known if monitoring reports will be prepared for individual landscape units, or if monitoring results will be reported on a Forest District (or other) basis. The monitoring frequency has not yet been determined for the program, although it may be that different indicators may have different monitoring and reporting intervals.

It is possible that as the future scope of landscape unit planning expands to capture other forest resources (e.g., water, recreation), the scope of the monitoring initiative will also expand. (At present, the scope of landscape unit planning is limited to identifying old growth management areas and wildlife tree patches, as these are assumed by government to be the primary elements that are required to conserve biodiversity at this planning scale.)

Status: An initial scoping review of landscape unit plan monitoring issues and considerations was completed by a consultant in October, 2000. That review identified a variety of potential pressure, state and response indicators that might be considered for monitoring biodiversity condition at the landscape and stand levels. Subsequently,



another consulting study was initiated (and was still in progress at the time that this report was written) to recommend specific biodiversity condition monitoring indicators.

Seventeen indicators are currently under consideration, although these still need to be assessed against criteria such as data availability and reliability, cost, repeatability, etc. Some examples of monitoring indicators being considered include: area of old growth forest by ecosystem type, area of old growth maintaining interior stand conditions, area of wildlife tree retention, wildlife tree retention stand structure, coarse wood debris, percent of environmentally sensitive areas retained, area of riparian buffer, degree of fragmentation.

It is intended that much of the information required to support monitoring and reporting on these potential indicators would be generated from data tables that are compiled by staff at the time that landscape unit plans are initially prepared. Procedures for generating these data tables from existing MOF and MELP data sources are being developed. To enable indicator trends monitoring it would be necessary to replicate these data tables at the desired reporting interval.

Once a set of monitoring indicators is selected, they will be piloted in one or more locations before the monitoring initiative is applied more broadly.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Allan Lidstone.

7. Model Forest Sustainable Forest Management (Local Level) Monitoring)

Purpose of Initiative: To measure progress towards sustainable forest management (SFM) at the local forest level, in relation to defined local level SFM indicators. Although there are only two model forests in BC, the indicators that are developed at this level are likely to have relevance to other forest-level SFM monitoring initiatives.

Business Driver: The initiative is founded in the national federal-provincial model forest network. All model forests across Canada are in the process of developing regionally-relevant criteria and indicators of SFM, using the CCFM criteria and indicators as a basis.

Key Characteristics: All model forests in the Canadian model forest network have been working for the past few years on developing and applying local level indicators. There is an expectation that there would be regular, periodic reporting on SFM performance, relative to the indicators. Data would come from existing available sources, but also from sampling plots / field surveys within the model forests.

Status: The Long Beach Model Forest embarked on an initiative to develop local level SFM criteria and indicators in 1998. They have a comprehensive list of indicators, and intend to report on biological indicators for which monitoring information is available. They have not yet screened their indicator list against the availability of information. They are in the process of developing some permanent sample plots for data collection



Page 63

for a few model forests, in cooperation with the licensees in the area. They would ultimately like to produce a report annually that reports on indicator trends -- a “Clayoquot Report”. The MacGregor model forest has an initial selection of indicators in place and are beginning to apply them in cooperation with the forest licensee (CanFor).

Responsible Agency and Contact: Long Beach Model Forest, Bodo von Schilling; Macgregor Model Forest, Kevin Petterson.

8. Forest Certification Auditing / Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: To assess whether or not performance standards that forest managers are expected to achieve as a condition of obtaining / maintaining forest certification are, in fact, being achieved.

Business Driver: Access to markets is the primary driver behind forest companies’ certification initiatives. Some international buyers of wood products are requiring producers to provide assurances (as provided by an independent auditor) that the products being sold originate from sustainably managed forests.

Key Characteristics: Forest certification may be obtained under one or more certification systems. IN BC, the main performance-based certification systems being implemented are those offered by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) or the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Certification is voluntary — forest managers apply for it if they think it will help them market their products. An approved, independent certifier assesses applicants’ forest management performance against pre-defined standards of sustainable forest management. Annual audits are conducted to determine if certification status may be retained or modified.

Under the CSA system, sustainable forest management performance indicators for specified categories are developed through a public participation process. These constitute the standards that the forest manager is audited against. Many of these tend to be compliance-oriented indicators, however a number are condition-oriented indicators that will require time-series environmental data to enable effective auditing. Examples of CSA performance indicators of environmental condition that have been recently developed for the Kamloops TSA include: levels of coarse woody debris retained at cutblocks, forest regeneration following harvest, percent of old forest retained in landscape units relative to LRMP-approved levels, levels of riparian protection relative to Forest Practices Code requirements, percentage of harvested areas in permanent roads and landings, harvest levels relative to AAC and cut control requirements.

Under the FSC system, auditors assess performance against a checklist of ten defined sustainable forest management principles and 56 criteria. Examples of auditing criteria for which information on environmental condition is required include: yield of all forest products harvested; forest growth rates and regeneration; composition and observed change in flora and fauna; extent of rare, threatened and endangered species and habitats; extent of non-forest uses; harvest rates.



A BC regional standard for the FSC system is presently being developed to more closely match performance standards with the province’s unique forest conditions. This regional standard will define specific BC performance indicators and thus the information requirements that will be required to facilitate FSC implementation in BC.

Status: To-date in BC, seven CSA certifications and three FSC certifications have been approved for various woodlands operations. These low numbers understate the degree of interest that exists among forest companies (and government) to achieve certification. A number of processes are underway throughout the province at the individual operator level and at the wider TSA level to implement forest certification under both systems. For example, in the Kamloops TSA, a CSA process is underway to develop a sustainable forest management plan that resulted in the identification of 27 sustainable forest management indicators, the auditing of which for some will require data on the condition of environmental resources.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Although monitoring that is conducted in connection with forest certification is conducted on a voluntary basis by individual forest companies and approved certifiers, the Ministry of Forests is closely following forest certification activities in BC. It can be expected that provincial data, especially in TSAs, will be called upon to supply audit information for certification implementation. (Forest Practices Branch, Harry Drage).

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

65

AAPP

PPEE

NNDD

II XX 44

:: CCUU

RRRR

EENN

TT AA

NNDD

PPRR

OOPP

OOSS

EEDD

MMOO

NNII TT

OORR

II NNGG

(( TTII MM

EE-- SS

EERR

II EESS)) II

NNFF OO

RRMM

AATT II

OONN

FF OO

RR TT

RREE

NNDD

SS II NN

TT EERR

PPRR

EETT AA

TT IIOO

NN &&

EEFF FF

EECC

TT IIVV

EENN

EESS

SS RR

EEPP

OORR

TT IINN

GG

II NNII TT

II AATT II

VVEE

SS OO

FF PP

RROO

VVII NN

CCII AA

LL AA

GGEE

NNCC

II EESS

(See

End

of A

ppen

dix

for E

xpla

nato

ry N

otes

)

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

ATM

OSP

HER

IC R

ESO

UR

CES

Air

Qua

lity

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

co

mm

uniti

es e

xpos

ed to

hea

lth ri

sks

from

fine

par

ticul

ates

(Im

pact

) fin

e pa

rticu

late

leve

ls (P

M10

and

PM

2.5

, NO

X, S

O2,

TR

S) i

n co

mm

uniti

es o

f co

ncer

n E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

ME

LP /

GV

RD

/ M

OH

st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

co

ncen

tratio

n of

fine

par

ticul

ates

in

sele

cted

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(Im

pact

) fin

e pa

rticu

late

leve

ls (a

s ab

ove)

in h

igh

use

/ urb

an p

rote

cted

are

as,

com

pare

d to

targ

et /

safe

par

ticul

ate

leve

ls.

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

Fi

ne P

artic

ulat

es

air q

ualit

y fro

m p

resc

ribed

fire

s an

d m

ills

(Impa

ct)

tonn

es o

f fin

e pa

rticu

late

s (P

M10

em

issi

ons)

from

pre

scrib

ed fi

res

and

fore

st

indu

stry

mill

s, b

y ye

ar, a

nd m

ap d

istri

butio

n of

fine

par

ticul

ates

S

tate

of F

ores

ts

Fi

ne P

artic

ulat

es

caus

es /

sour

ces

of fi

ne p

artic

ulat

es

emis

sion

s (P

ress

ure)

so

urce

s of

fine

par

ticul

ate

emis

sion

s (to

nnes

), by

type

(e.g

., bu

rnin

g, m

ills,

ot

her u

rban

sou

rces

), fo

r Low

er M

ainl

and

and

rest

of B

C. A

lso,

sou

rces

of

emis

sion

s (m

obile

, poi

nt s

ourc

e, a

rea

sour

ces)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

S

mok

e /

Par

ticul

ates

pr

escr

ibed

bur

ning

act

ivity

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

of p

resc

ribed

fire

s, b

y ye

ar

Sta

te o

f For

ests

H

ealth

Impa

cts

mor

bidi

ty a

nd m

orta

lity

(Impa

ct)

publ

ic h

ealth

sta

tistic

s on

mor

bidi

ty a

nd m

orta

lity

from

resp

irato

ry d

isea

ses

MO

H s

trate

gic

plan

ning

, R

egio

nal M

edic

al H

ealth

of

ficia

ls

G

aseo

us

Con

tam

inan

ts

gase

ous

cont

amin

ant c

once

ntra

tions

(Im

pact

) le

vels

of:

grou

nd-le

vel o

zone

, nitr

ogen

dio

xide

, sul

phur

dio

xide

, hyd

roge

n su

lphi

de, c

arbo

n m

onox

ide,

car

bon

diox

ide

(exc

eeda

nces

rela

tive

to

prov

inci

al o

bjec

tives

)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

G

aseo

us a

nd

Par

ticul

ate

Con

tam

inan

ts

disp

ersi

on (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea /

dist

ribut

ion

of d

ispe

rsio

n of

con

tam

inan

ts

ME

LP /

GV

RD

/ M

OH

st

rate

gic

plan

ning

A

ir Q

ualit

y Im

pact

s on

Fo

rest

s

perc

enta

ge o

f for

est l

and

subj

ecte

d to

le

vels

of s

peci

fic a

ir po

lluta

nts

that

may

ne

gativ

ely

impa

ct fo

rest

eco

syst

ems

(Impa

ct)

atm

osph

eric

leve

ls o

f sul

phat

es, n

itrat

e, o

zone

, ultr

avio

let B

in fo

rest

ec

osys

tem

s C

CFM

C&

I

O

zone

oz

one

depl

etio

n (C

ondi

tion)

oz

one

conc

entra

tions

in fo

rest

ed re

gion

s C

CFM

, crit

eria

and

in

dica

tors

, ME

LP /

MO

H

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

gree

nhou

se g

as e

mis

sion

s (P

ress

ure)

m

egat

onne

s of

CO

2 eq

uiva

lent

s di

scha

rged

into

the

atm

osph

ere,

and

sec

tora

l so

urce

of d

isch

arge

s –

tota

l for

BC

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

G

loba

l War

min

g gr

een

hous

e ga

s em

issi

on s

ourc

es

(Pre

ssur

e)

inve

ntor

y of

gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

sou

rces

and

am

ount

s M

ELP

/ G

VR

D /

MO

H

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Page

66

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

G

loba

l War

min

g fo

rest

indu

stry

em

issi

ons

(Pre

ssur

e)

trend

s in

foss

il fu

el /

carb

on p

rodu

ct e

mis

sion

s fro

m fo

rest

sec

tor.

Als

o pe

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t sec

tor e

nerg

y us

age

from

rene

wab

le s

ourc

es.

CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

G

loba

l War

min

g te

mpe

ratu

re in

crea

ses

(Con

ditio

n)

BC

tem

pera

ture

cha

nge

over

pas

t cen

tury

, by

regi

on (a

nd a

t for

est l

evel

) E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

tem

pera

ture

incr

ease

s (C

ondi

tion)

te

mpe

ratu

re “s

ums”

; met

eoro

logi

cal p

aram

eter

s (p

reci

pita

tion,

etc

). C

CFM

C&

I, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g, M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng, B

C H

ydro

, E

mer

genc

y P

lann

ing

G

loba

l War

min

g w

ater

tem

pera

ture

(Con

ditio

n)

chan

ge in

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

res

over

tim

e at

sel

ecte

d si

tes

Mod

el F

ores

t mon

itorin

g

G

loba

l War

min

g gl

acie

r ret

reat

(Im

pact

) ch

ange

in p

ositi

on o

f gla

cier

fron

t rel

ativ

e to

190

0 at

sel

ecte

d B

C g

laci

ers

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

G

loba

l War

min

g B

C fo

rest

s as

car

bon

sink

s (C

ondi

tion)

ca

rbon

sto

ck c

hang

es (t

onne

s) –

abs

orpt

ion

and

rele

ase-

by

fore

st ty

pe a

nd

for t

otal

fore

st

Sta

te o

f For

est,

CC

FM C

&I

G

loba

l War

min

g B

C fo

rest

s as

car

bon

sink

s (C

ondi

tion)

ca

rbon

poo

ls i.

e., t

ree

vs. n

on-tr

ee b

iom

ass

volu

me

estim

ates

(ton

nes)

. A

lso,

ar

ea o

f for

est d

eple

tion,

and

per

cent

age

of c

anop

y co

ver,

as in

dica

tors

of

carb

on s

eque

stra

tion.

Als

o, b

iom

ass

loss

due

to fi

re

Sta

te o

f For

est,

CC

FM

C&

I, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

BC

fore

sts

as c

arbo

n si

nks

(Res

pons

e)

Kyo

to p

roto

col a

ccou

ntin

g ef

fect

s S

tate

of F

ores

t

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

carb

on s

eque

stra

tion

/ rel

ease

in

agric

ultu

ral s

yste

ms

(Pre

ssur

e)

dyna

mic

s of

car

bon

sink

s an

d se

ques

tratio

n in

agr

icul

tura

l sys

tem

s M

ELP

, MA

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Fore

stry

CO

2 em

issi

ons

(Pre

ssur

e)

CO

2 em

issi

ons

(tonn

es) f

rom

the

fore

st s

ecto

r C

CFM

C&

I, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g

AQ

UA

TIC

RES

OU

RC

ES

Fi

sh a

nd o

ther

A

quat

ic F

auna

S

peci

es a

t Ris

k th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d fis

h sp

ecie

s th

at a

re “f

ores

t dw

ellin

g” (

Impa

ct)

perc

ent o

f kno

wn

of s

peci

es th

at a

re th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d, a

ccor

ding

to

degr

ee o

f for

est d

epen

denc

y (h

igh,

med

ium

, low

). A

lso

resi

dent

fish

spe

cies

an

d st

ocks

at r

isk

for v

ario

us re

gion

s (e

.g.,

red-

liste

d aq

uatic

spe

cies

in

Kam

loop

s LR

MP

are

a)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

S

alm

on S

tock

s sa

lmon

sto

ck e

xtin

ctio

ns a

nd ri

sks

of

extin

ctio

n (Im

pact

) nu

mbe

r of k

now

n sa

lmon

sto

cks

(by

spec

ies)

that

are

ext

inct

, at m

oder

ate

to

high

risk

of b

ecom

ing

extin

ct, o

r of s

peci

al c

once

rn.

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

A

nadr

omou

s Fi

sh

anad

rom

ous

fish

spec

ies

esca

pem

ent

(Con

ditio

n)

hist

oric

reco

rd o

f ann

ual n

umbe

rs o

f sal

mon

ids

that

retu

rn to

spa

wn

at

sele

cted

loca

tions

(e.g

., C

oho,

ste

elhe

ad)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

W

hite

Stu

rgeo

n ag

e di

strib

utio

n of

whi

te s

turg

eon

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

enta

ge o

f whi

te s

turg

eon

popu

latio

n th

at is

juve

nile

vs.

sub

-adu

lts v

s.

adul

ts in

Fra

ser a

nd N

echa

ko R

iver

s E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

K

okan

ee

spaw

ning

act

ivity

(Con

ditio

n)

num

ber o

f Kok

anee

spa

wne

rs in

stre

ams

of O

kana

gan

Lake

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Bul

l Tro

ut

popu

latio

n st

atus

(Im

pact

) pe

rcen

t of w

ater

shed

gro

upin

gs w

here

Bul

l Tro

ut p

opul

atio

ns a

re s

able

ver

sus

decl

inin

g E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

S

elec

ted

Sto

cks

stat

us o

f sel

ecte

d st

ocks

(Con

ditio

n)

fish

popu

latio

ns a

nd tr

ends

for a

nadr

omou

s, s

port,

non

-com

mer

cial

and

sp

ecie

s at

risk

) i.e

., nu

mbe

r of f

ish

coun

ted

annu

ally

at s

elec

ted

perm

anen

t m

onito

ring

site

s (e

.g.,

stee

lhea

d sm

olts

, coh

o es

cape

men

ts, r

esid

ent t

rout

, et

c.)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(e.g

., V

anco

uver

Isla

nd),

M

ELP

, MoF

i stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

S

elec

ted

Sto

cks

stoc

k re

cove

ry p

lans

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

sto

ck re

cove

ry p

rogr

ams

/ pla

ns

MoF

i, M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

S

elec

ted

Spe

cies

sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n, a

bund

ance

and

di

strib

utio

n (Im

pact

) ch

ange

s in

fish

spe

cies

com

posi

tion

and

abun

danc

e an

d di

strib

utio

n (a

s an

in

dica

tor o

f clim

ate

chan

ge)

MoF

i, M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

67

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

S

elec

ted

Spe

cies

fis

hing

effo

rt an

d ca

tch

(Impa

ct)

decl

ines

in fi

sher

effo

rt, to

tal c

atch

and

cat

ch /

unit

effo

rt M

oFi,

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Sel

ecte

d S

peci

es

fish

harv

est (

Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber o

f fis

h ha

rves

ted

acco

rdin

g to

spe

cies

, sto

cks

ME

LP, M

OFI

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

A

quat

ic F

auna

ab

unda

nce

and

dist

ribut

ion

of a

quat

ic

faun

a (C

ondi

tion)

ch

ange

s in

dis

tribu

tion

and

abun

danc

e of

uns

peci

fied

spec

ies

of a

quat

ic fa

una

CC

FM C

&I

La

ke

Cla

ssifi

catio

ns

trend

s in

lake

cla

ssifi

catio

ns

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber o

f lak

es th

at h

ave

been

cla

ssifi

ed, u

sing

the

MO

F La

ke C

lass

ifica

tion

Sys

tem

, as

clas

s A

(mos

t res

trict

ive)

to c

lass

E (l

east

rest

rictiv

e)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

Wat

er Q

uant

ity

Hyd

rolo

gica

l w

ater

flow

at s

elec

ted

drai

nage

s (C

ondi

tion)

su

mm

er lo

w fl

ow a

nd p

eak

flow

at s

elec

ted

perm

anen

t stre

am g

augi

ng

stat

ions

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

Van

couv

er Is

land

, K

amlo

ops)

, CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Hyd

rolo

gica

l sn

ow p

ack

(Con

ditio

n)

snow

pac

k / s

urve

y tre

nds

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Hyd

rolo

gica

l su

rface

wat

er a

rea

in fo

rest

ed a

reas

(C

ondi

tion)

lo

ng-te

rm tr

ends

in a

rea

of s

urfa

ce w

ater

in fo

rest

ed a

reas

C

CFM

C&

I, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g

Hyd

rolo

gica

l w

ater

shed

ass

essm

ents

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber o

f wat

ersh

ed a

sses

smen

ts a

nd, o

f tho

se, t

he n

umbe

r of w

ater

shed

s id

entif

ied

as re

quiri

ng re

habi

litat

ion

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

S

urfa

ce W

ater

A

vaila

bilit

y fu

lly a

lloca

ted

stre

ams

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber o

f wat

er s

uppl

ies

that

are

fully

reco

rded

(i.e

., co

mm

unity

wat

ersh

eds;

m

ajor

bas

ins;

cre

eks,

bro

oks

and

lake

s; s

prin

gs, p

onds

and

gul

ches

) La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Gro

und

Wat

er

Ava

ilabi

lity

wat

er le

vels

(Con

ditio

n)

aver

age

wat

er le

vels

at o

bser

vatio

n w

ells

in m

ajor

pro

vinc

ial a

quife

rs (a

nd in

aq

uife

rs in

mod

el fo

rest

s)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Wat

er Q

ualit

y S

urfa

ce W

ater

Q

ualit

y in

W

ater

shed

s

wat

er q

ualit

y in

dex

(Con

ditio

n)

wat

er q

ualit

y in

dex

resu

lts a

t mon

itorin

g si

tes

(rep

orte

d as

impr

ovin

g,

dete

riora

ting

or n

o ch

ange

in q

ualit

y), r

epor

ted

by w

ater

shed

gro

upin

gs.

Als

o,

wat

er q

ualit

y ra

tings

at m

onito

red

site

s (i.

e., e

xcel

lent

, goo

d, fa

ir, b

orde

rline

or

poor

ratin

gs).

Als

o, o

ther

uns

peci

fied

wat

er c

hem

istry

par

amet

ers

(CC

FM

C&

I, an

d FS

C c

ertif

icat

ion)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

Van

couv

er Is

land

), C

CFM

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

S

urfa

ce W

ater

Q

ualit

y w

ater

qua

lity

para

met

ers

(Con

ditio

n)

surfa

ce w

ater

qua

lity

as in

dica

ted

by m

easu

rem

ents

of:

diss

olve

d so

lids,

ha

rdne

ss, t

race

ele

men

ts, c

hlor

ophy

ll a,

nut

rient

s, n

itrat

e, p

H, s

edim

ents

, fe

cal c

olifo

rms,

cya

nide

, AO

X, t

empe

ratu

re, d

isso

lved

gas

es.

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

, M

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

D

rinki

ng W

ater

Q

ualit

y dr

inki

ng w

ater

hea

lth p

aram

eter

s (C

ondi

tion)

dr

inki

ng w

ater

qua

lity

of re

gula

ted

utili

ties

(mic

robi

olog

y, p

roto

zoan

s, m

etal

s,

maj

or io

ns, n

itrat

e) –

sur

face

wat

er a

nd g

roun

dwat

er

ME

LP, M

OH

, reg

ulat

ed

utili

ties

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

D

rinki

ng W

ater

Q

ualit

y bo

il w

ater

adv

isor

ies

(Res

pons

e)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of b

oil w

ater

adv

isor

ies

ME

LP, M

OH

, Reg

iona

l he

alth

offi

cers

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

D

rinki

ng W

ater

Q

ualit

y co

mm

unity

wat

ersh

eds

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

pla

ns

ME

LP, M

OF

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

W

ater

born

e D

isea

se

wat

erbo

rne

dise

ase

para

met

ers

(Impa

ct)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of w

ater

-bor

ne d

isea

ses

ME

LP, M

OH

, Reg

iona

l he

alth

offi

cers

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

C

ompl

ianc

e co

mpl

ianc

e at

poi

nt-s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

(P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r, qu

ality

and

com

plia

nce

reco

rds

of p

oint

-sou

rce

disc

harg

es

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

La

nd U

se

land

use

s w

ith p

oten

tial w

ater

qua

lity

impa

cts

(Pre

ssur

e)

land

are

a oc

cupi

ed b

y us

es w

ith p

oten

tial w

ater

qua

lity

impa

cts

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Fo

rest

ry Im

pact

s ro

ad d

eact

ivat

ion

for w

ater

ki

lom

eter

s of

road

that

hav

e be

en d

eact

ivat

ed fo

r pur

pose

s of

wat

er q

ualit

y La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g

Page

68

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

man

agem

ent p

urpo

ses

(Res

pons

e)

cont

rol

(Kam

loop

s)

Fo

rest

ry Im

pact

s tu

rbid

ity (I

mpa

ct)

turb

idity

in w

ater

shed

s (o

r at s

elec

ted

sam

plin

g si

tes,

e.g

., K

amlo

ops)

. A

lso,

tu

rbid

ity in

pai

red

wat

ersh

eds,

with

and

with

out l

oggi

ng.

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

, M

odel

For

est M

onito

ring

Fo

rest

ry Im

pact

s ch

anne

l cha

nge,

hyd

rolo

gy, p

artic

le

size

dis

tribu

tion

(Impa

ct)

exte

nt o

f cha

nges

in th

ese

attri

bute

s, o

ver t

ime,

at f

ores

t lev

el

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

W

ater

Qua

lity

at

Mar

ine

Par

ks

feca

l col

iform

leve

ls a

t mar

ine

park

/ bo

at a

ncho

rage

s, o

r she

llfis

h cl

osur

es

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f day

s th

at fe

cal c

olifo

rm le

vels

exc

eed

prov

inci

al s

tand

ards

at

sele

cted

mar

ine

park

s / a

ncho

rage

s; o

r, nu

mbe

r of d

ays

of s

hellf

ish

clos

ure

at

sele

cted

mar

ine

park

s du

e to

feca

l con

tam

inat

ion

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

W

ater

Qua

lity

at

She

llfis

h G

row

ing

Are

as

mar

ine

wat

er q

ualit

y at

exi

stin

g an

d po

tent

ial s

hellf

ish

grow

ing

area

s (Im

pact

)

area

of f

ores

hore

are

as c

lose

d to

she

llfis

h ha

rves

ting;

per

cent

age

of fo

resh

ore

area

s w

ith h

igh

and

mod

erat

e sh

ellfi

sh c

apab

ility

that

are

clo

sed

to s

hellf

ish

harv

estin

g; a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

fore

shor

e ar

eas

with

hig

h sh

ellfi

sh fa

rmin

g su

itabi

lity

that

are

clo

sed

to s

hellf

ish

prod

uctio

n –

due

to fe

cal o

r dio

xin

cont

amin

atio

n

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

)

P

ulp

and

Pap

er

Mill

Effl

uent

ch

lorin

ated

org

anic

com

poun

ds in

pul

p an

d pa

per e

fflue

nt d

isch

arge

(Im

pact

) to

nnes

/ da

y of

abs

orba

ble

orga

nic

halid

e (A

OX

) dis

char

ges

inn

pulp

and

pa

per e

fflue

nt

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

G

roun

d W

ater

Q

ualit

y qu

ality

of w

ell w

ater

(Im

pact

) gr

ound

wat

er q

ualit

y at

obs

erva

tion

wel

ls (e

.g.,

nitra

te a

nd p

estic

ides

). A

lso,

nu

mbe

r of g

roun

dwat

er w

ells

with

wat

er q

ualit

y co

ncer

ns, o

r num

ber c

lass

ed

as h

ighl

y vu

lner

able

acc

ordi

ng to

aqu

ifer c

lass

ifica

tion

/ map

ping

met

hods

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

, ME

LP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

G

roun

d W

ater

Q

ualit

y aq

uife

rs a

t ris

k of

con

tam

inat

ion

(Con

ditio

n)

num

ber o

f BC

aqu

ifers

with

repo

rted

grou

ndw

ater

qua

lity

conc

erns

; num

ber

vuln

erab

le to

con

tam

inat

ion

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

M

onito

ring

Effo

rt nu

mbe

r and

loca

tion

of w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g st

atio

ns (R

espo

nse)

nu

mbe

r and

loca

tion

of w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g st

atio

ns

Sat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I

Man

agem

ent

Effo

rt fo

rest

man

agem

ent d

esig

natio

ns to

pr

otec

t wat

er q

ualit

y (R

espo

nse)

fo

rest

land

are

a th

at is

man

aged

for s

oil a

nd w

ater

pro

tect

ion,

by

type

(e.g

., co

mm

unity

wat

ersh

eds,

net

dow

ns fo

r ter

rain

inst

abili

ty, r

ipar

ian

zone

s).

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I W

ater

Use

Li

cens

ed w

ater

us

e nu

mbe

r and

vol

ume

of s

urfa

ce w

ater

lic

ense

d (P

ress

ure)

vo

lum

e of

sur

face

wat

er (m

3 / y

r) li

cens

ed fo

r var

ious

con

sum

ptiv

e us

es

(agr

icul

ture

, the

rmal

pow

er, m

inin

g, m

anuf

actu

ring,

mun

icip

al)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

W

ater

Use

hy

drol

ogic

al d

esig

n (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r and

dis

tribu

tion

of re

ques

ts fo

r hyd

rolo

gica

l des

ign

info

rmat

ion

ME

LP s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Per

Cap

ita

Wat

er U

se

volu

me

of w

ater

use

d pe

r cap

ita

(Pre

ssur

e)

per c

apita

wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

(litre

s pe

r per

son

per d

ay)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

S

tream

R

estri

ctio

ns

stre

am re

stric

tions

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber o

f res

trict

ions

regi

ster

ed a

gain

st s

tream

s E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

B

ottle

d W

ater

w

ater

lice

nsed

for b

ottle

sal

es

(Pre

ssur

e)

volu

me

of w

ater

lice

nsed

for b

ottle

d w

ater

sal

es in

BC

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

C

omm

unity

W

ater

shed

s st

atus

of c

omm

unity

wat

ersh

eds

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber a

nd a

rea

of c

omm

unity

wat

ersh

eds,

in s

ize

cate

gorie

s B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

G

roun

dwat

er

Use

w

ater

use

from

BC

aqu

ifers

(Pre

ssur

e)

perc

enta

ge o

f BC

aqu

ifers

that

are

at r

isk

from

hea

vy w

ater

use

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Hab

itat

Urb

an S

tream

s Lo

wer

Fra

ser V

alle

y st

ream

dam

age

(Pre

ssur

e)

perc

ent o

f stre

ams

in L

ower

Fra

ser V

alle

y th

at h

ave

been

lost

, or a

re

thre

aten

ed a

nd e

ndan

gere

d E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

P

rodu

ctiv

ity

pres

ence

/ ab

senc

e of

hab

itat a

ttrib

utes

(C

ondi

tion)

st

ream

hab

itat c

hara

cter

istic

s ch

ange

ove

r tim

e at

sel

ecte

d lo

cal s

tream

s (e

.g.,

coar

se w

oody

deb

ris, p

oolin

g, s

tream

stru

ctur

e, s

tream

sid

e ve

geta

tion)

M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

69

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

C

ross

ings

st

ream

cro

ssin

gs (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r and

type

of s

tream

cro

ssin

gs

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

H

abita

t C

ondi

tion

wat

ersh

ed in

tegr

ity (P

ress

ure)

la

nd u

se, l

and

cove

r, ro

ad a

nd s

tream

cro

ssin

g de

nsiti

es a

nd h

ydro

logi

cal

char

acte

ristic

s in

wat

ersh

eds

ME

LP, M

oFi s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Hab

itat A

mou

nt

fish

habi

tat c

ondi

tion

and

amou

nt

(Con

ditio

n)

dist

ribut

ion

and

qual

ity o

f fis

h ha

bita

ts; a

mou

nt /

leng

th o

f kno

wn

salm

on,

spor

tfish

and

oth

er fi

sh s

tream

s M

ELP

, MoF

i stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

H

abita

t C

ondi

tion

aqua

tic h

abita

t deg

rada

tion

(Impa

ct)

exte

nt, d

istri

butio

n an

d tre

nds

in ri

paria

n an

d aq

uatic

eco

syst

ems

degr

adat

ion

ME

LP, M

oFi s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tion

aqua

tic h

abita

t reh

abili

tatio

n pr

ojec

ts

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

wat

ersh

ed, s

tream

and

fish

hab

itat r

ehab

ilita

tion

proj

ects

M

ELP

, MoF

i stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

CU

LTU

RA

L / H

ERIT

AG

E R

ESO

UR

CES

C

ultu

ral /

H

erita

ge

Res

ourc

es in

P

rote

cted

Are

as

risk

to c

ultu

ral h

erita

ge v

alue

s (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r / p

erce

nt o

f pro

tect

ed a

reas

whe

re ‘h

ighl

y si

gnifi

cant

’ cul

tura

l /

herit

age

reso

urce

s ar

e as

sess

ed b

y pa

rk m

anag

ers

to b

e at

a h

igh,

mod

erat

e or

low

risk

of d

eter

iora

tion

from

any

cau

se

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

Tr

aditi

onal

Use

tra

ditio

nal u

se s

tudi

es (R

espo

nse)

nu

mbe

r and

loca

tion

of tr

aditi

onal

use

, kno

wle

dge

stud

ies

com

plet

ed /

unde

rway

S

tate

of F

ores

ts

H

erita

ge

Des

igna

tions

H

erita

ge C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

des

igna

tions

(R

espo

nse)

ar

ea o

f lan

d m

anag

ed a

nd p

rote

cted

und

er th

e H

erita

ge C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

(e

.g.,

trust

s, a

rcha

eolo

gica

l site

s)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

LAN

D &

RES

OU

RC

E U

SE

A

gric

ultu

re &

R

ange

land

A

gric

ultu

ral L

and

Pro

tect

ion

agric

ultu

ral l

and

rese

rve

(Res

pons

e)

area

of l

and

reta

ined

in a

gric

ultu

ral l

and

rese

rve,

by

regi

on a

nd p

rovi

ncia

lly

Land

Res

erve

Com

mis

sion

re

porti

ng; B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s; a

nd L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops,

Van

couv

er

isla

nd)

A

gric

ultu

ral L

and

Pro

tect

ion

agric

ultu

ral c

apab

ility

cla

sses

in A

LR

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of v

ario

us a

gric

ultu

ral c

apab

ility

cla

sses

that

are

pro

tect

ed b

y th

e A

LR

(i.e.

, cla

ss 1

-7),

and

perc

ent o

f tot

al a

rea

in A

LR

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

A

gric

ultu

ral

Act

ivity

fa

rm n

umbe

rs (C

ondi

tion)

nu

mbe

r / a

rea

of fa

rms

in &

out

of p

rodu

ctio

n, lo

catio

ns, t

ypes

, siz

es, e

tc.,

by

regi

on a

nd p

rovi

nce-

wid

e M

AA

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

A

gric

ultu

ral

Act

ivity

fa

rmin

g an

d ra

nchi

ng a

ctiv

ity in

BC

(P

ress

ure)

lo

catio

n an

d am

ount

of f

arm

ing

/ ran

chin

g ac

tivity

in B

C, i

nclu

ding

: gro

und

man

ipul

atio

n, c

rop

type

s, ir

rigat

ed v

s. d

ryla

nd, f

ertil

izer

and

her

bici

de

appl

icat

ions

, im

prov

emen

ts, e

tc.

MA

A s

trate

gic

plan

ning

, an

d “S

tate

of A

gric

ultu

re in

B

C” r

epor

ting,

Lan

d us

e pl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

A

gric

ultu

ral

Pot

entia

l ag

ricul

tura

l use

par

amet

ers

(Con

ditio

n)

vario

us d

ata

on fa

ctor

s th

at d

eter

min

e th

e ab

ility

to fa

rm /

ranc

h in

BC

in a

co

st-e

ffect

ive

man

ner,

incl

udin

g: s

oil f

ertil

ity, e

xten

t of w

eeds

, wat

er

avai

labi

lity

to s

uppo

rt ag

ricul

ture

, soi

l ero

sion

leve

ls, e

tc.)

MA

A s

trate

gic

plan

ning

an

d “S

tate

of A

gric

ultu

re in

B

C” r

epor

ting

Fa

rmla

nd U

se

type

of f

arm

land

in B

C (C

ondi

tion)

ty

pe o

f far

mla

nd a

ccor

ding

to m

ajor

cla

ssifi

catio

ns (i

mpr

oved

for f

ield

cro

ps,

impr

oved

pas

ture

, sum

mer

fallo

w v

s. u

nim

prov

ed la

nd v

s. o

ther

land

) B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

R

ange

land

Use

nu

mbe

r of g

razi

ng p

erm

its a

nd li

cens

es

issu

ed, a

nd a

nim

al u

nit m

onth

s (P

ress

ure)

num

ber p

erm

its /

licen

ses

issu

ed a

nnua

lly, a

nd n

umbe

r of a

nim

al u

nit m

onth

s th

at a

re a

vaila

ble

annu

ally

for g

razi

ng a

ctiv

ity, b

y re

gion

and

pro

vinc

ially

. A

lso,

est

imat

e of

futu

re A

UM

har

vest

to 2

100.

Als

o, n

umbe

r of g

razi

ng

tenu

res

and

AU

Ms

that

ove

rlap

with

pro

tect

ed a

reas

Sta

te o

f For

ests

; Lan

d us

e pl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s); B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

Page

70

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

R

ange

land

Use

an

d C

over

am

ount

of r

ange

use

acc

ordi

ng to

land

co

ver t

ypes

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

of C

row

n ra

nge

bein

g us

ed, a

nd n

umbe

r of A

UM

s, w

ithin

land

cov

er

cate

gorie

s (e

.g.,

open

rang

e, w

etla

nd, a

lpin

e, d

ry fo

rest

, cle

arin

gs, e

tc.)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

R

ange

land

Typ

e ra

ngel

and

clas

ses(

Con

ditio

n)

area

of C

row

n ra

ngel

and

(gra

ssla

nd, o

pen

fore

st a

nd e

arly

ser

al fo

rest

) S

tate

of F

ores

ts, L

RM

P

mon

itorin

g re

ports

(K

amlo

ops)

; an

d M

OF/

MA

A s

trate

gic

plan

ning

pur

pose

s

Irrig

atio

n fo

r A

gric

ultu

re

irrig

atio

n w

ater

lice

nsin

g (R

espo

nse)

nu

mbe

r of i

rrig

atio

n lic

ense

s in

pla

ce, b

y re

gion

and

pro

vinc

ially

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

, and

MA

A /

MO

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

pu

rpos

es

N

oxio

us W

eeds

oc

curr

ence

of n

oxio

us w

eeds

(P

ress

ure)

ar

ea a

nd d

egre

e of

infe

stat

ion

with

nox

ious

wee

ds, b

y sp

ecie

s (e

.g.,

knap

w

eed,

toad

flax,

etc

). A

lso

map

ping

of l

ocat

ion

of n

oxio

us w

eeds

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e.,

Kam

loop

s)

A

quac

ultu

re

Act

ivity

aq

uacu

lture

farm

num

bers

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber o

f ope

ratin

g fin

fish

and

shel

lfish

farm

s La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e., V

anco

uver

Isla

nd);

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

A

quac

ultu

re

Land

Use

la

nd a

lloca

tion

for a

quac

ultu

re

(Res

pons

e)

fore

shor

e ar

ea w

ith la

nd u

se p

riorit

y as

sign

ed to

aqu

acul

ture

dev

elop

men

t, an

d ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

land

hel

d un

der a

quac

ultu

re te

nure

s La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g,

Min

istry

of F

ishe

ries

and

BC

AL

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

purp

oses

C

onse

rvat

ion

Land

In

stru

men

ts fo

r C

onse

rvat

ion

sele

cted

con

serv

atio

n de

sign

atio

ns

(Res

pons

e)

area

of C

row

n la

nd s

ecur

ed fo

r con

serv

atio

n us

es u

nder

var

ious

Lan

d A

ct a

nd

Gre

enbe

lt A

ct in

stru

men

ts (e

.g.,

desi

gnat

ions

, res

erve

s, le

ases

) B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

W

etla

nds

and

Pea

t lan

ds

occu

rren

ce o

f wet

land

s an

d pe

at la

nds

in B

C (C

ondi

tion)

to

tal a

rea

in w

etla

nds

and

peat

land

s B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

H

igh

Con

serv

atio

n V

alue

For

ests

mai

nten

ance

of h

igh

cons

erva

tion

valu

e fo

rest

s ov

er ti

me

(Con

ditio

n)

exte

nt to

whi

ch c

onse

rvat

ion

attri

bute

s in

“hig

h co

nser

vatio

n va

lue

fore

st”

area

s ar

e m

aint

aine

d or

enh

ance

d ov

er ti

me

FSC

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

Fore

st L

and

Pro

duct

ivity

fo

rest

ed a

rea

in p

rimar

y pr

oduc

tivity

cl

asse

s (C

ondi

tion)

.

area

of l

and

in p

rimar

y fo

rest

man

agem

ent c

lass

es: p

rodu

ctiv

e (a

vaila

ble

and

unav

aila

ble)

ver

sus

non-

prod

uctiv

e. A

lso

area

of i

mm

atur

e ve

rsus

mat

ure

fore

st in

goo

d, m

ediu

m, p

oor,

low

site

cla

ss, a

ccor

ding

to m

anag

emen

t uni

t ty

pe

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

P

rodu

ctiv

ity

mea

n an

nual

incr

emen

t (C

ondi

tion)

m

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent b

y fo

rest

type

and

age

cla

ss

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Pro

duct

ivity

nu

trien

t flu

xes

(Con

ditio

n)

nutri

ent f

luxe

s by

sta

nd ty

pe (i

.e.,

at th

e B

EC

sub

zone

leve

l) M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

“W

orki

ng F

ores

t” fo

rest

land

rese

rve

(Res

pons

e)

land

are

a in

the

fore

st la

nd re

serv

e La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g

“Wor

king

For

est”

area

for g

row

ing

and

harv

estin

g tim

ber

(Con

ditio

n)

timbe

r har

vest

ing

land

bas

e, p

er a

ge c

lass

by

fore

st ty

pe, b

y tim

ber

prod

uctiv

ity.

And

are

a of

old

gro

wth

in A

GH

T as

a p

erce

ntag

e of

old

gro

wth

, by

BE

C z

one

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g

Con

serv

atio

n la

nds

fore

st a

rea

man

aged

for s

oil a

nd w

ater

(a

nd o

ther

eco

logi

cal)

prot

ectio

n (R

espo

nse)

perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al fo

rest

ed a

rea

that

is m

anag

ed p

rimar

ily fo

r soi

l and

wat

er

prot

ectio

n. A

lso,

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

fore

st o

pera

tions

to p

rote

ct in

tegr

ity o

f “hi

gh

cons

erva

tion

vale

fore

sts”

(FS

C c

ertif

icat

ion)

CC

FM C

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

C

onse

rvat

ion

land

s pr

otec

ted

fore

st b

y de

gree

of p

rote

ctio

n (R

espo

nse)

ar

ea a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

pro

tect

ed fo

rest

land

, acc

ordi

ng to

IUC

N p

rote

ctio

n cl

assi

ficat

ions

C

CFM

C&

I

O

wne

rshi

p ar

ea o

f for

est l

and

in v

ario

us c

lass

es o

f ow

ners

hip

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of f

ores

t, by

ow

ners

hip

(e.g

., pr

ovin

cial

, fed

eral

, Abo

rigin

al, p

rivat

e)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

71

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

O

wne

rshi

p co

rpor

ate

conc

entra

tion,

by

year

(C

ondi

tion)

pe

rcen

tage

of p

rovi

ncia

l AA

C c

ontro

lled

by to

p 10

com

pani

es

Sta

te o

f For

ests

M

anag

emen

t ar

ea o

f for

est l

and

in v

ario

us

man

agem

ent u

nit c

lass

ifica

tions

(C

ondi

tion)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d in

man

aged

fore

st u

nits

(uni

ts w

here

an

AA

C is

es

tabl

ishe

d), b

y m

anag

er

Sta

te o

f For

ests

M

anag

emen

t ar

ea c

over

ed b

y m

ulti-

attri

bute

in

vent

orie

s (R

espo

nse)

pe

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t lan

d th

at is

cov

ered

by

mul

ti-at

tribu

te re

sour

ce

inve

ntor

ies

CC

FM C

&I

M

anag

emen

t pa

rtici

pato

ry m

anag

emen

t pla

nnin

g (R

espo

nse)

pe

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t lan

d un

der c

ompl

eted

man

agem

ent p

lans

that

hav

e in

clud

ed p

ublic

par

ticip

atio

n C

CFM

C&

I

R

esto

ratio

n ha

bita

t res

tora

tion

(Res

pons

e)

area

of h

abita

t res

tore

d fo

llow

ing

fore

st d

evel

opm

ent a

ctiv

ity

Sta

te o

f For

ests

Per

man

ent

Con

vers

ion

fore

st la

nd c

onve

rsio

n (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea o

f for

est l

and

perm

anen

tly c

onve

rted

to n

on-fo

rest

use

from

180

0 to

20

00, e

stim

ated

by

deca

de

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, M

odel

For

est

mon

itorin

g

Sem

i-Per

man

ent

Con

vers

ion

fore

st la

nd c

onve

rsio

n (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea o

f for

est l

and

in s

emi-p

erm

anen

t or t

empo

rary

loss

/ ga

in (e

.g.,

gras

slan

ds o

r agr

icul

ture

) C

CFM

C&

I

S

emi-P

erm

anen

t C

onve

rsio

n fo

rest

land

con

vers

ion

(Pre

ssur

e)

perc

enta

ge o

f har

vest

ed a

reas

that

are

con

verte

d to

per

man

ent r

oads

and

la

ndin

gs (a

t TS

A le

vel)

Fore

st C

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

CS

A

Kam

loop

s TS

A),

Mod

el

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

Lan

d U

tiliz

atio

n ut

iliza

tion

of fo

rest

land

for n

on-m

arke

t go

ods

and

serv

ices

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d th

at is

use

d fo

r com

mer

cial

ver

sus

non-

com

mer

cial

pu

rpos

es, i

nclu

ding

fore

st la

nd u

se fo

r sub

sist

ence

. (A

lso,

loss

es d

ue to

land

fa

ilure

suc

h as

land

slid

es a

nd fl

oodi

ng)

CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

W

aste

Res

idue

s w

aste

resi

due

on h

arve

sted

site

s (Im

pact

) am

ount

of f

ores

t was

te re

tain

ed o

n ha

rves

ted

site

s M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

La

ndsl

ide

Act

ivity

fre

quen

cy o

f lan

dslid

es in

sel

ecte

d w

ater

shed

s (Im

pact

) an

nual

num

ber o

f lan

dslid

e ev

ents

(nat

ural

ver

sus

hum

an in

duce

d) in

sel

ecte

d w

ater

shed

s La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e. V

anco

uver

Isla

nd)

D

evel

opm

ent o

n Fr

agile

Ter

rain

/ H

abita

t

road

bui

ldin

g on

uns

tabl

e te

rrai

n / s

teep

sl

opes

and

with

in 1

00 m

e of

stre

ams

(Pre

ssur

e)

amou

nt o

f roa

d bu

ildin

g ac

tivity

on

stee

p sl

opes

and

/ or

uns

tabl

e te

rrai

n an

d /

or w

ithin

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to s

tream

s M

ELP

, MO

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

, Env

ironm

enta

l Tr

ends

La

nd /

Res

ourc

e U

se

Plan

ning

Pla

nnin

g E

ffort

/ Zo

nes

stra

tegi

c la

nd u

se p

lann

ing

stat

us /

desi

gnat

ions

(Res

pons

e)

area

and

loca

tion

of s

trate

gic

land

use

pla

ns b

ased

on

cons

ensu

s, b

y ye

ar ;

and

trend

s in

land

use

pla

n zo

ning

des

igna

tions

(Res

pons

e)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, LU

CO

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

D

ispo

sitio

n P

lans

C

row

n la

nd d

ispo

sitio

n pl

ans

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

Cro

wn

land

dis

posi

tion

plan

s

BC

Ass

ets

and

Land

s st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Land

Use

/ C

over

La

nd u

se a

nd la

nd c

over

sta

tistic

s (C

ondi

tion)

tre

nds

in a

rea

and

dist

ribut

iona

l cha

nges

in g

ener

al la

nd u

se a

nd la

nd c

over

(m

appi

ng a

nd s

tatis

tics

for 2

0 la

nd u

se a

nd v

eget

atio

n co

ver c

lass

es)

ME

LP, M

OF,

MA

F, M

oFi

(and

oth

er a

genc

ies’

) st

rate

gic

plan

ning

La

nd /

Res

ourc

e U

se

Tenu

res

Land

A

dmin

istra

tion

land

tenu

re is

suan

ce (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r and

dis

tribu

tion

of a

pplic

atio

ns fo

r Cro

wn

land

M

ELP

, BC

Ass

ets

and

Land

s st

rate

gic

plan

ning

La

nd

Adm

inis

tratio

n en

croa

chm

ent /

con

flict

s w

ith s

ensi

tive

land

s (Im

pact

) al

iena

tion

of im

porta

nt h

abita

t, en

croa

chm

ent o

n rip

aria

n ar

eas

and

flood

plai

ns, a

nd in

to w

ater

-sho

rt ar

eas

ME

LP, B

C A

sset

s an

d La

nds

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Min

ing

and

Ener

gy

Min

eral

Lan

d D

istu

rban

ce a

nd

Res

tora

tion

dist

urbe

d an

d re

stor

ed m

iner

al la

nd

(Con

ditio

n, R

espo

nse)

ar

ea o

f lan

d di

stur

bed

and

rest

ored

by

coal

and

met

al m

ines

(cum

ulat

ive

hect

ares

ove

r tim

e)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

Page

72

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

M

iner

al a

nd

Ene

rgy

Exp

lora

tion

min

eral

/ co

al a

nd p

etro

leum

and

na

tura

l gas

tenu

res

/ pro

ject

s (P

ress

ure)

num

ber a

nd a

rea

of m

iner

al a

nd c

oal,

and

petro

leum

and

nat

ural

gas

tenu

res

and

proj

ects

(e.g

., ex

plor

atio

n an

d dr

illin

g ac

tivity

vs.

dev

elop

men

t), p

rovi

nce-

wid

e an

d by

regi

ons

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics,

Lan

d us

e pl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s, V

anco

uver

Is

land

)

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n to

tal v

ersu

s al

tern

ativ

e en

ergy

co

nsum

ptio

n (P

ress

ure)

pe

tajo

ules

of t

otal

ene

rgy

cons

umed

ver

sus

alte

rnat

ive

ener

gy c

onsu

med

in

BC

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Pest

icid

es a

nd

Toxi

c C

onta

min

ants

Pes

ticid

e U

se o

n C

row

n La

nd

use

of p

estic

ides

on

Cro

wn

land

(P

ress

ure)

us

e of

che

mic

al p

estic

ides

on

fore

st la

nd

FSC

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

P

ersi

sten

t O

rgan

ic

Pol

luta

nts

leve

ls o

f tox

ic c

onta

min

ants

in a

col

ony

of G

reat

Blu

e H

eron

s (Im

pact

) le

vels

of P

CB

s an

d D

DE

s in

Gre

at B

lue

Her

ron

eggs

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

C

onta

min

ated

S

ites

site

rem

edia

tion

(Res

pons

e)

num

ber o

f con

tam

inat

ed s

ites

rem

edia

ted

over

tim

e E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

C

onta

min

ated

S

ites

on

-site

toxi

c su

bsta

nce

rele

ases

(P

ress

ure)

to

nnes

of o

n-si

te to

xic

subs

tanc

e re

leas

es

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

Prot

ecte

d A

reas

P

rote

cted

Lan

ds

amou

nt o

f BC

in p

rote

cted

are

a st

atus

(R

espo

nse)

to

tal t

erre

stria

l and

mar

ine

area

s se

cure

d in

pro

tect

ed a

rea

stat

us b

y fe

dera

l an

d pr

ovin

cial

des

igna

tions

. A

lso

area

and

num

ber b

roke

n do

wn

by p

rote

cted

ar

ea s

tatu

s (fe

dera

l, pr

ovin

cial

)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds;

S

tate

of P

arks

; LU

CO

’s

PA

S m

onito

ring;

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics,

Lan

d us

e pl

an

mon

itorin

g

Eco

syst

em

Pro

tect

ion

ecos

yste

m re

pres

enta

tion

in p

rote

cted

ar

eas

(Res

pons

e)

perc

ent o

f are

a of

BC

eco

syst

ems

(BE

C, E

cose

ctio

ns) i

n pr

otec

ted

stat

us,

prov

inci

ally

, reg

iona

lly, a

nd a

t lan

dsca

pe /

fore

st le

vels

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s;

Sta

te o

f Par

ks; L

UC

O’s

P

AS

mon

itorin

g; L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, C

CFM

C

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

P

rote

cted

Are

a C

onne

cted

ness

co

nnec

tivity

bet

wee

n / a

mon

g pr

otec

ted

area

s (C

ondi

tion)

as

sess

men

t of e

xten

t of c

onne

ctiv

e fu

nctio

n be

twee

n pr

otec

ted

area

s w

ithin

sp

ecifi

ed la

nd u

nits

(e.g

., ex

pres

sed

as g

ood,

mod

erat

e or

poo

r con

nect

ivity

).

Pro

vinc

e w

ide,

and

for r

egio

ns

Sta

te o

f Par

ks; L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

Van

couv

er Is

land

)

Eco

logi

cal

Res

tora

tion

ecol

ogic

al re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts in

BC

’s

park

s (R

espo

nse)

ty

pe a

nd n

umbe

r of e

cosy

stem

reha

bilit

atio

n pr

ojec

ts, o

ver t

ime

S

tate

of P

arks

R

isk

to P

ark

Val

ues

risk

to n

atur

al v

alue

s, re

crea

tion

reso

urce

s, a

nd c

ultu

ral /

her

itage

re

sour

ces

in p

rote

cted

are

as (P

ress

ure)

num

ber /

per

cent

of ‘

high

ly s

igni

fican

t’ na

tura

l. re

crea

tiona

l, cu

ltura

l / h

erita

ge

valu

es in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

that

are

ass

esse

d by

par

k m

anag

ers

to b

e at

hig

h,

mod

erat

e or

low

risk

of d

eter

iora

tion

from

any

cau

se

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

R

isk

to P

ark

Val

ues

sign

ifica

nt e

nviro

nmen

tal o

ccur

renc

es

in p

rote

cted

are

as (I

mpa

ct)

num

ber o

f env

ironm

enta

l occ

urre

nces

in p

rote

cted

are

as (e

.g.,

fire

man

agem

ent,

inse

ct /

dise

ase

outb

reak

, wee

d in

fest

atio

ns)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

P

ark

Use

vi

sita

tion

rate

s (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r of o

vern

ight

cam

pers

, num

ber o

f day

use

vis

itors

, and

tota

l num

ber o

f vi

sits

in p

rote

cted

are

as, p

rovi

ncia

lly a

nd b

y re

gion

S

tate

of P

arks

, Lan

d us

e pl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

P

ark

Saf

ety

inci

denc

e of

inju

ries

/ fat

aliti

es in

par

ks

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f inj

urie

s / f

atal

ities

in p

rote

cted

are

as

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

Rec

reat

ion

and

Tour

ism

Fo

rest

R

ecre

atio

n U

se

visi

tor d

ays,

by

year

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber o

f rec

reat

ion

visi

tor d

ays

in p

rovi

ncia

l for

ests

, by

activ

ity, a

nnua

lly,

prov

ince

-wid

e an

d by

regi

on

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

73

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

,

Fore

st

Rec

reat

ion

Faci

litie

s

site

s an

d tra

ils, b

y ye

ar (R

espo

nse)

nu

mbe

r of f

ores

t rec

reat

ion

site

s, a

nd k

m o

f rec

reat

ion

trails

, by

year

, pr

ovin

ce-w

ide

and

by re

gion

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s),

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Vis

ual Q

ualit

y vi

sual

qua

lity

obje

ctiv

es (R

espo

nse)

fo

rest

are

a in

var

ious

cat

egor

ies

of v

isua

l qua

lity

obje

ctiv

es (e

.g.,

rete

ntio

n,

parti

al re

tent

ion,

etc

.) A

lso,

regi

on-w

ide

per

cent

age

com

plia

nce

/ co

ntra

vent

ion

of v

isua

l qua

lity

obje

ctiv

es (K

amlo

ops

LRM

P)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Vis

ual Q

ualit

y vi

sual

attr

activ

enes

s of

are

as th

at h

ave

been

est

ablis

hed

as ‘s

ceni

c ar

eas’

(C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge o

f des

igna

ted

‘sce

nic

area

s’ (u

nder

FP

C) t

hat a

re in

an

exis

ting

visu

al c

ondi

tion

of p

rese

rvat

ion,

rete

ntio

n, o

r par

tial r

eten

tion.

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e., V

anco

uver

Isla

nd)

R

ecre

atio

n O

ppor

tuni

ty

recr

eatio

n op

portu

nity

spe

ctru

m

(Res

pons

e)

fore

st a

rea

in v

ario

us c

ateg

orie

s of

the

fore

st re

crea

tion

oppo

rtuni

ty s

pect

rum

(R

OS

, i.e

., ru

ral,

road

ed n

atur

al, r

oade

d m

odifi

ed, s

emi-p

rimiti

ve m

otor

ized

, se

mi-p

rimiti

ve n

on-m

otor

ized

, prim

itive

)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, C

&I,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s,

Van

couv

er Is

land

)

Cro

wn

Rec

reat

ion

Dis

posi

tions

recr

eatio

nal C

row

n la

nds

unde

r the

La

nd A

ct (R

espo

nse)

ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

land

sec

ured

for r

ecre

atio

n pu

rpos

es (e

.g.,

alpi

ne s

kiin

g,

mec

hani

zed

ski g

uidi

ng, b

ackc

ount

ry re

crea

tion,

mar

inas

, etc

.) us

ing

vario

us

Land

Act

inst

rum

ents

(lea

ses,

lice

nces

, res

erve

s)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics,

Lan

d us

e pl

an m

onito

ring

(Van

couv

er Is

land

, K

amlo

ops)

Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

Tour

ism

ra

tes

of g

row

th fo

r res

ourc

e-ba

sed

tour

ism

ope

ratio

ns (P

ress

ure)

an

nual

gro

wth

rate

s fo

r fac

ilitie

s an

d vi

sito

rs fo

r var

ious

type

s of

reso

urce

-ba

sed

tour

ism

(e.g

., sk

iing,

spo

rt fis

hing

, fis

hing

reso

rts, g

uide

-out

fitte

rs)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

R

ecre

atio

n A

nglin

g tro

ut s

tock

ing

(Res

pons

e)

annu

al n

umbe

r of t

rout

sto

cked

in v

ario

us lo

catio

ns fo

r rec

reat

ion

angl

ing

purp

oses

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Rec

reat

ion

Ang

ling

/ Hun

ting

angl

ing

and

hunt

ing

effo

rt (P

ress

ure)

an

nual

ang

ling

effo

rt (a

ngle

r / h

unte

r day

s), b

ased

on

licen

sed

sale

s fo

r va

rious

loca

tions

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

So

lid W

aste

S

olid

Was

te

Gen

erat

ion

solid

was

te g

ener

atio

n pe

r cap

ita

(Pre

ssur

e)

kilo

gram

s pe

r per

son,

by

regi

on, o

f sol

id w

aste

dis

pose

d to

land

fills

and

in

cine

rato

rs, b

y w

aste

type

. A

lso

litre

s of

was

te o

il re

cycl

ed a

nd n

umbe

r of

lead

-aci

d ba

ttery

uni

ts re

cycl

ed

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d U

tiliti

es

Roa

d an

d R

ail

road

and

rail

infra

stru

ctur

e (P

ress

ure)

ki

lom

eter

s of

pro

vinc

ial h

ighw

ays

and

fore

st ro

ads;

and

kilo

met

ers

of m

ain

line

track

s B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

U

tiliti

es

oil a

nd g

as li

ne in

frast

ruct

ure

(Pre

ssur

e)

kilo

met

ers

of c

rude

oil

and

natu

ral g

as p

ipel

ines

in B

C

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

Settl

emen

ts

Urb

an S

praw

l “b

uild

-up”

land

in B

C (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea o

f lan

d in

BC

use

d fo

r urb

an a

nd ru

ral s

ettle

men

t, tra

nspo

rtatio

n, a

nd

farm

stea

d B

C L

and

Sta

tistic

s

U

rban

Spr

awl

rura

l lan

d co

nver

sion

(Pre

ssur

e)

hect

ares

of r

ural

land

con

verte

d to

urb

an u

se

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

P

rivat

e La

nd

Cro

wn

land

tran

sfer

red

to p

rivat

e ow

ners

hip

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of C

row

n la

nd tr

ansf

erre

d to

priv

ate

owne

rshi

p by

Cro

wn

gran

t, ov

er ti

me

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

M

unic

ipal

S

tatis

tics

area

s as

sess

ed a

nd e

xem

pted

from

ta

xatio

n (P

ress

ure)

la

nd a

rea

that

is a

sses

sed

for t

axat

ion,

and

exe

mpt

from

taxa

tion

(i.e.

, par

ks,

wat

er, s

treet

s, ro

ads,

pla

ygro

unds

, oth

er)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

In

dust

rial L

and

avai

labi

lity

of in

dust

rial l

and

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of i

ndus

trial

land

that

is a

vaila

ble

for i

ndus

trial

use

and

are

a of

land

that

is

occ

upie

d fo

r ind

ustri

al u

se (a

nd to

tal)

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

TER

RES

TRIA

L R

ESO

UR

CES

Vege

tatio

n /

Fore

sts

Pro

duct

ivity

m

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent (

Con

ditio

n)

mea

n an

nual

incr

emen

t by

fore

st ty

pe a

nd a

ge c

lass

C

CFM

C&

I

P

rodu

ctiv

ity

prod

uctiv

ity in

crea

ses

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

timbe

r vol

ume

incr

ease

s th

at a

re a

ttrib

utab

le to

FR

BC

inve

stm

ents

into

fore

st

FRB

C s

trate

gic

plan

ning

/

Page

74

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

inte

nsiv

e si

lvic

ultu

re in

vest

men

ts

(Con

ditio

n)

prod

uctiv

ity

mon

itorin

g

P

rodu

ctiv

ity

rate

of f

ores

t gro

wth

(Con

ditio

n)

volu

me

of a

nnua

l gro

wth

at f

ores

t lev

el; a

nd y

ears

to re

ach

free

grow

ing

FSC

cer

tific

atio

n, M

odel

fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fore

st T

ype

and

Age

fo

rest

age

cla

ss /

old

grow

th d

istri

butio

n (C

ondi

tion)

ar

ea o

f for

est p

er a

ge c

lass

(e.g

., 1-

40, 4

1-80

, etc

.) by

fore

st ty

pe (i

.e.,

dom

inan

t spe

cies

). A

lso,

are

a of

old

gro

wth

, “yo

unge

r” fo

rest

, and

non

-fore

st.

Als

o, a

mou

nt o

f old

gro

wth

that

is a

cces

sibl

e fo

r tim

ber h

arve

stin

g,

inac

cess

ible

for t

imbe

r har

vest

ing,

and

pro

tect

ed

Sta

te o

f For

est,

CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g, F

SC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

Typ

e an

d A

ge

pres

ence

of o

ld g

row

th (C

ondi

tion)

ar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

(251

+ ye

ars

for c

oast

al, a

ll fo

rest

type

s; 1

41+

year

s fo

r in

terio

r for

mos

t for

est t

ypes

; and

121

+ ye

ars

for s

tand

s do

min

ated

by

lodg

epol

e pi

ne o

r dec

iduo

us s

peci

es.

Alte

rnat

ivel

y si

mpl

y us

e 25

0+ y

ears

for

all f

ores

t typ

es)

Sta

te o

f For

est,

CC

FM C

&I

Fo

rest

Age

D

istri

butio

n

sera

l sta

ge d

istri

butio

n by

fore

st ty

pe,

by m

anag

emen

t uni

t (e.

g. T

SA

); an

d by

la

ndsc

ape

units

by

BE

C v

aria

nt

(Con

ditio

n)

area

/ pe

rcen

t of l

ands

cape

uni

t in

vario

us s

eral

sta

ges

(i.e.

, pre

senc

e of

old

gr

owth

vs.

mat

ure

vs. m

id-s

eral

vs.

ear

ly s

eral

fore

st),

rela

tive

to s

eral

sta

ge

dist

ribut

ion

targ

ets

esta

blis

hed

in B

iodi

vers

ity G

uide

book

and

in L

RM

Ps

and

in

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lans

. A

lso

need

abi

lity

to re

port

sera

l sta

ge d

istri

butio

n in

La

ndsc

ape

units

by

BE

C v

aria

nt

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g; L

and

use

plan

m

onito

ring,

CS

A

certi

ficat

ion

proc

ess

(e.g

., K

amlo

ops

TSA

)

Old

Gro

wth

In

terio

r Sta

nd

Con

ditio

n

amou

nt o

f old

gro

wth

vs.

mat

ure

fore

st

that

has

“int

erio

r sta

nd c

ondi

tion”

(C

ondi

tion)

area

and

per

cent

age

of o

ld g

row

th /

mat

ure

fore

st in

land

scap

e un

its th

at h

ave

inte

rior s

tand

con

ditio

n (i.

e., a

rea

of o

ld g

row

th m

anag

emen

t are

as /

recr

uitm

ent a

reas

min

us o

ld g

row

th /

mat

ure

fore

st b

uffe

r are

as),

by

land

scap

e un

it. A

lso,

mon

itorin

g of

“for

est d

ynam

ics”

– F

SC

cer

tific

atio

n

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

Tr

ee S

peci

es

tree

spec

ies

com

posi

tion

(Con

ditio

n)

tree

spec

ies

com

posi

tion

by fo

rest

type

(spe

cies

dis

tribu

tion

over

tim

e)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Wild

life

Tree

R

eten

tion

w

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s / g

ap d

istri

butio

n (R

espo

nse)

ar

ea o

f wild

life

tree

patc

hes

that

are

reta

ined

from

har

vest

ing,

by

land

scap

e un

it, a

nd a

t for

est l

evel

. ( “

Fore

st d

ynam

ics”

– F

SC

cer

tific

atio

n; “g

ap

dyna

mic

s –

mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g)

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

W

ildlif

e Tr

ee

Ret

entio

n (C

ut

bloc

ks)

wild

life

tree

patc

h re

tent

ion

(Res

pons

e)

perc

enta

ge o

f har

vest

ed b

lock

s gr

eate

r tha

n 5

ha th

at h

ave

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

and

/ or i

ndiv

idua

l wild

life

/ lea

ve tr

ees

iden

tifie

d in

ope

ratio

nal p

lans

. O

r, si

ze a

nd n

umbe

r of i

slan

d re

mna

nts

of u

ndis

turb

ed fo

rest

in h

arve

sted

ar

eas

Fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

, M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

W

ildlif

e Tr

ee

Pat

ch S

truct

ure

cr

own

clos

ure

/ tra

nspa

renc

y in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

enta

ge o

f cro

wn

clos

ure

in w

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s th

at h

ave

been

reta

ined

, by

land

scap

e un

it. A

lso,

per

cent

age

crow

n tra

nspa

renc

y by

cla

ss

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, C

CFM

C&

I

Wild

life

Tree

P

atch

Stru

ctur

e

seco

ndar

y sp

ecie

s in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

(Con

ditio

n)

num

ber?

of s

econ

dary

veg

etat

ive

spec

ies

cont

aine

d in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

by

land

scap

e un

it La

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

n M

onito

ring

W

ildlif

e Tr

ee

Pat

ch S

truct

ure

si

te q

ualit

y at

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

ent o

f are

a of

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

acco

rdin

g to

var

ious

site

inde

x cl

asse

s,

by la

ndsc

ape

unit

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g

Wild

life

Tree

P

atch

Stru

ctur

e

vege

tatio

n re

tain

ed in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

(Con

ditio

n)

num

ber o

f ste

ms

per h

ecta

re /

basa

l are

a re

tain

ed in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes,

by

land

scap

e un

it La

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

n M

onito

ring

W

ildlif

e Tr

ee

Pat

ch S

truct

ure

am

ount

of o

ld v

eget

atio

n re

tain

ed in

w

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s (C

ondi

tion)

ar

ea /

perc

enta

ge o

f for

est c

over

in c

utbl

ocks

that

is re

tain

ed to

mai

ntai

n la

te-

succ

essi

onal

hab

itat e

lem

ents

and

attr

ibut

es

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(e.g

., V

anco

uver

Isla

nd)

S

hape

Inde

x sh

ape

inde

x in

diff

eren

t ope

ning

siz

es

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

enta

ge o

f sha

pe in

dex

in d

iffer

ent o

peni

ng s

ize

clas

ses

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

S

tand

Stre

ss

stan

d su

scep

tibili

ty c

lass

(Con

ditio

n)

area

(in

vario

us c

lass

es) o

f sta

nds

that

are

sus

cept

ible

to s

igni

fican

t bio

logi

cal

and

abio

tic a

gent

s (le

adin

g to

infe

stat

ions

) M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

75

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

S

tand

Stre

ss

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se in

cide

nce

(Impa

ct)

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se in

cide

nce

by a

ge c

lass

and

fore

st c

hang

e pr

oces

s M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

S

tand

Stre

ss

stre

ss-r

elat

ed fo

rest

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se

atta

ch (I

mpa

ct)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of s

tress

-rel

ated

fore

st in

sect

and

dis

ease

atta

ck

ME

LP, M

OF

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Fi

re H

azar

d ar

ea o

f haz

ard

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of h

igh

to s

ever

e fir

e ha

zard

M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fi

re H

azar

d na

tura

l wild

fire

(Impa

ct)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of n

atur

al w

ildfir

es (a

s an

indi

cato

r of c

limat

e ch

ange

) M

ELP

, MO

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Coa

rse

Woo

dy

Deb

ris

pres

ence

of c

oars

e w

oody

deb

ris

(Con

ditio

n)

area

/ pe

rcen

t of l

ands

cape

uni

t whe

re c

oars

e w

oody

deb

ris h

as b

een

reta

ined

(inf

orm

atio

n m

ay b

e re

quire

d at

TS

A le

vel,

fore

st le

vel,

or la

ndsc

ape

unit

leve

l)

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

ores

t C

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g,

Mod

el F

ores

t mon

itorin

g

Env

ironm

enta

lly

Sen

sitiv

e A

reas

se

nsiti

ve a

rea

/ rip

aria

n bu

ffer r

eten

tion

in la

ndsc

ape

units

(Res

pons

e)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of E

SA

1 a

nd E

SA

2 a

nd ri

paria

n bu

ffers

that

are

co

nstra

ined

from

har

vest

ing

in la

ndsc

ape

units

. A

lso,

are

as o

f “hi

gh

cons

erva

tion

valu

e fo

rest

” tha

t are

pro

tect

ed

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

C

onst

rain

ed

Land

s

land

are

a co

nstra

ined

from

har

vest

ing

(Res

pons

e)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of l

ands

cape

uni

ts th

at a

re p

artia

lly o

r ful

ly c

onst

rain

ed fr

om

harv

estin

g La

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Mon

itorin

g

Fo

rest

Age

and

Ty

pe in

P

rote

cted

Are

as

fore

st a

ge p

er a

ge c

lass

, by

fore

st ty

pe

(BE

C) (

Con

ditio

n)

ha o

f are

a in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

in v

ario

us fo

rest

age

cla

sses

, by

fore

st ty

pe; a

nd

perc

ent o

f tot

al p

rovi

ncia

l for

est i

n th

ose

age

clas

ses

/ typ

es th

at a

re p

rote

cted

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring,

FS

C fo

rest

ce

rtific

atio

n

Fore

st A

ge a

nd

Type

in

Pro

tect

ed A

reas

old

grow

th in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(C

ondi

tion)

ar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

, you

nger

fore

st a

nd n

on-fo

rest

in p

rote

cted

are

a st

atus

, by

BE

C z

one;

and

per

cent

that

this

repr

esen

ts o

f all

prov

inci

al o

ld g

row

th.

Als

o ar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

reta

ined

, by

BE

C z

ones

, by

land

scap

e un

its (a

nd a

t for

est

leve

l), c

ompa

red

to b

iodi

vers

ity g

uide

book

old

gro

wth

rete

ntio

n ta

rget

s

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd U

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g, F

SC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

Fo

rest

Age

D

istri

butio

n fo

rest

age

by

type

in T

SA

s (C

ondi

tion)

ar

ea o

f mat

ure

vs. i

mm

atur

e fo

rest

cov

er in

TS

As,

by

lead

ing

spec

ies

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics

Fr

agm

enta

tion

road

den

sity

on

fore

st la

nd (P

ress

ure)

km

per

km

2 of

road

s pe

r wat

ersh

ed g

roup

ings

and

by

land

scap

e un

its

(Pre

ssur

e)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, L

and

use

plan

m

onito

ring,

CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fore

st

Dis

turb

ance

am

ount

of f

ores

t dis

turb

ed (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea o

f for

est d

istu

rbed

by

fire

(nat

ural

and

hum

an-c

ause

d) v

s. p

ests

vs.

ha

rves

ting.

Als

o, a

mou

nt o

f are

a af

fect

ed b

y di

ffere

nt in

sect

def

olia

tors

(K

amlo

ops

LRM

P)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g, M

odel

For

est

mon

itorin

g

Rec

ent

Har

vest

ing

amou

nt o

f lan

d su

bjec

t to

rece

nt lo

ggin

g (P

ress

ure)

he

ctar

es a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

land

are

a th

at h

as b

een

logg

ed (w

ithin

20

year

s,

Van

couv

er Is

land

pla

n)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

)

Fore

st

Dis

turb

ance

(R

ipar

ian

Are

as)

amou

nt o

f dis

turb

ance

in fo

rest

ed

ripar

ian

zone

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

of f

ores

ted

ripar

ian

zone

dis

turb

ed b

y fir

e, p

ests

and

har

vest

ing,

197

0 to

20

00, b

y w

ater

shed

gro

upin

gs

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

E

xotic

Spe

cies

ex

otic

tree

pla

ntat

ions

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

of e

xotic

tree

pla

ntat

ions

, by

spec

ies

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, FS

C fo

rest

ce

rtific

atio

n

Exo

tic S

peci

es

exot

ic s

peci

es th

reat

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber o

f exo

tic s

peci

es b

y ty

pe o

f thr

eat (

i.e.,

no th

reat

, thr

eat t

o na

tive

trees

, ani

mal

s, h

uman

hea

lth

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I

Page

76

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

Fo

rest

Gen

etic

s ge

netic

ally

impr

oved

sto

ck (P

ress

ure)

ar

ea p

lant

ed w

ith g

enet

ical

ly im

prov

ed a

nd h

ybrid

tree

s, b

y sp

ecie

s S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

Fo

rest

Gen

etic

s ge

netic

var

ianc

e (Im

pact

) ge

netic

var

ianc

e of

tree

s in

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y fo

rest

s (m

easu

red

in tr

ee

heig

ht o

r dis

ease

resi

stan

ce)

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, FS

C fo

rest

ce

rtific

atio

n

Fore

st G

enet

ics

gene

tical

ly m

odifi

ed o

rgan

ism

s (P

ress

ure)

nu

mbe

r of g

enet

ical

ly m

odifi

ed o

rgan

ism

s us

ed in

fore

st m

anag

emen

t (e.

g.,

re-p

lant

ing)

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion

Ti

mbe

r Har

vest

ap

prov

ed v

ersu

s ac

tual

har

vest

leve

ls

(Pre

ssur

e)

tota

l pro

vinc

ial A

AC

(m3)

and

act

ual h

arve

st (m

3) p

er ty

pe o

f reg

ulat

ed fo

rest

(i.

e., T

SA

, TFL

, WL)

, pro

vinc

e-w

ide

and

by m

anag

emen

t uni

ts.

Als

o, a

ctua

l ha

rves

t on

regu

late

d ve

rsus

unr

egul

ated

har

vest

, by

year

Sta

te o

f For

est,

CC

FM

C&

I, Fo

rest

Cer

tific

atio

n,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s, V

anco

uver

Is

land

), FS

C c

ertif

icat

ion

(yie

ld)

Ti

mbe

r Har

vest

fa

ll do

wn

estim

ates

(Con

ditio

n)

estim

ated

futu

re A

AC

on

regu

late

d fo

rest

ove

r nex

t 100

yea

rs (m

3).

Als

o,

perc

enta

ge re

duct

ion

in e

stim

ated

AA

C fr

om p

eak

to 2

100,

by

fore

st

man

agem

ent u

nit

Sta

te o

f For

est

Ti

mbe

r Har

vest

cu

tting

leve

ls re

lativ

e to

gro

wth

rate

s (P

ress

ure)

ra

tio o

f vol

ume

harv

este

d in

giv

en a

rea

(e.g

., m

anag

emen

t uni

t, la

ndsc

ape

unit)

, com

pare

d to

tota

l MA

I for

that

are

a M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Ti

mbe

r Har

vest

S

yste

ms

area

of t

imbe

r har

vest

usi

ng d

iffer

ent

harv

estin

g sy

stem

s (P

ress

ure)

fo

rest

land

are

a su

bjec

t to

clea

r cut

ting

vers

us p

artia

l cut

ting

BC

Lan

d S

tatis

tics,

Sta

te

of F

ores

ts, M

OF

Ann

ual

Rep

orts

, Lan

d us

e pl

an

mon

itorin

g

Tim

ber H

arve

st

Sys

tem

s cu

t blo

ck s

ize

dist

ribut

ion

(Con

ditio

n)

dist

ribut

ion

of c

ut b

lock

siz

es, i

n va

rious

siz

e cl

asse

s

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

R

egen

erat

ion

back

log

and

non-

suffi

cien

tly re

stoc

ked

(NS

R) l

and

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of N

SR

land

ove

r tim

e La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fore

st

Reg

ener

atio

n fo

rest

rege

nera

tion

and

rege

nera

tion

met

hod

and

timin

g (R

espo

nse)

ar

ea re

gene

rate

d by

nat

ural

ver

sus

artif

icia

l mea

ns, b

y ye

ar.

Als

o, a

rea

not

rege

nera

ted

with

in 1

0 or

mor

e ye

ars

follo

win

g ha

rves

t, by

yea

r S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I,

FSC

fore

st

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

R

egen

erat

ion

logg

ed a

rea

in fr

ee g

row

ing

cond

ition

(C

ondi

tion)

ra

tio o

f are

as re

achi

ng fr

ee to

gro

w s

tatu

s on

an

annu

al b

asis

, to

annu

al a

rea

harv

este

d (in

put /

out

put)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fo

rest

R

egen

erat

ion

rege

nera

tion

timin

g (C

ondi

tion)

ye

ars

to re

ach

free

to g

row

sta

tus

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fo

rest

R

egen

erat

ion

stoc

king

leve

ls (R

espo

nse)

re

fore

stat

ion

stoc

king

leve

ls (s

tem

s pe

r ha)

M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

R

esto

ratio

n pl

anta

tion

fore

st a

reas

rest

ored

to

natu

ral f

ores

t cov

er (R

espo

nse)

am

ount

of f

ores

t are

a in

pla

ntat

ion

fore

st th

at is

rest

ored

to it

s na

tura

l for

est

cove

r FS

C fo

rest

cer

tific

atio

n

G

rass

land

s an

d O

peni

ngs

area

of g

rass

land

s an

d ot

her o

peni

ngs

(ope

n ra

nge)

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of C

row

n ve

rsus

priv

ate

land

in v

ario

us c

lass

ifica

tions

of g

rass

land

s /

open

ings

(i.e

., op

en ra

nge,

alp

ine,

mea

dow

, sw

amp,

hay

field

, cle

arin

g)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Kam

loop

s)

R

ange

Con

ditio

n pl

ant c

omm

uniti

es (C

ondi

tion)

tre

nds

in p

lant

com

mun

ity c

hang

es a

t spe

cifie

d ph

oto-

poin

ts

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

Fo

rest

fo

rest

rege

nera

tion

timin

g (R

espo

nse)

ar

ea /

perc

enta

ge o

f har

vest

ed s

ites

that

are

/ ar

e no

t reg

ener

ated

with

in th

ree

CS

A F

ores

t cer

tific

atio

n

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

77

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

Reg

ener

atio

n ye

ars

of h

arve

st.

Als

o ra

tio o

f reg

ener

ated

site

s to

nat

ural

site

inde

x (K

amlo

ops

TSA

), M

odel

fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Myc

orrh

izae

pr

esen

ce a

nd c

olon

izat

ion

(Con

ditio

n)

pres

ence

of m

ycor

rhiz

ae a

nd c

olon

izat

ion

of ro

ots

(at s

elec

ted

sam

plin

g si

tes)

M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

N

itrog

en

form

s of

nitr

ogen

(Con

ditio

n)

form

s of

nitr

ogen

by

sera

l sta

ge

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g W

ildlif

e S

peci

es a

t Ris

k th

reat

ened

and

end

ange

red

spec

ies

(Impa

ct)

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

spec

ies

as a

per

cent

age

of k

now

n sp

ecie

s, b

y sp

ecie

s ca

tego

ry.

Als

o, re

gion

al lo

catio

n of

spe

cies

at r

isk

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g,

CC

FM C

&I

S

peci

es a

t Ris

k in

Pro

tect

ed

Are

as

rare

, thr

eate

ned

and

enda

nger

ed

spec

ies

(Impa

ct)

num

ber a

nd p

erce

nt o

f spe

cies

in p

rote

cted

are

as (b

y m

ajor

pro

tect

ed a

rea

clas

sific

atio

n th

at a

re re

d or

blu

e-lis

ted

Sta

te o

f Par

ks

Fo

rest

Spe

cies

at

Ris

k ra

re, t

hrea

tene

d or

end

ange

red

fore

st-

depe

nden

t and

gra

ssla

nd-a

ssoc

iate

d sp

ecie

s (Im

pact

)

perc

enta

ge o

f kno

wn

fore

st-d

epen

dent

or g

rass

land

-ass

ocia

ted

spec

ies

(fish

, am

phib

ians

, mam

mal

s, p

lant

s, b

irds,

rept

iles)

that

are

blu

e or

red-

liste

d E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I, La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g

Thre

ats

to

Spe

cies

at R

isk

land

use

thre

ats

to th

reat

ened

and

en

dang

ered

ver

tebr

ates

(Pre

ssur

e)

rela

tive

impo

rtanc

e of

var

ious

thre

ats

to re

d-lis

ted

verte

brat

es, i

nclu

ding

rip

aria

n-de

pend

ent v

erte

brat

es (a

gric

ultu

re, u

rban

dev

elop

men

t, lo

ggin

g, e

tc.).

A

lso,

rela

tive

thre

ats

to fo

rest

-dep

ende

nt s

peci

es

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, F

SC

fo

rest

cer

tific

atio

n, M

odel

fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fore

st D

wel

ling

Mam

mal

s hi

stor

ic ra

nge

trend

s (Im

pact

) nu

mbe

r of m

amm

al s

peci

es (w

ildlif

e tre

e us

ers

vers

us n

on-w

ildlif

e tre

e us

ers)

w

here

thei

r kno

wn

rang

e is

con

tract

ing

vers

us e

xpan

ding

E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring

Fo

rest

Dw

ellin

g B

irds

fore

st d

wel

ling

bird

pop

ulat

ions

(C

ondi

tion)

pe

rcen

tage

incr

ease

or d

ecre

ase

in fo

rest

dw

ellin

g bi

rd p

opul

atio

ns (c

oast

al

vers

us in

terio

r)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (V

anco

uver

Isla

nd,

Kam

loop

s), C

CFM

C&

I

Rip

aria

n-dw

ellin

g V

erte

brat

es

ripar

ian-

dwel

ling

verte

brat

es a

t ris

k (Im

pact

) pe

rcen

tage

of k

now

n rip

aria

n de

pend

ent v

erte

brat

es (i

nclu

des

mam

mal

s,

amph

ibia

ns, f

ish,

bird

s, re

ptile

s) th

at a

re th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,

CC

FM C

&I

M

arbl

ed

Mur

rele

ts

nest

ing

habi

tat (

Con

ditio

n)

perc

enta

ge o

f nat

ural

rang

e of

mar

bled

mur

rele

t ter

rest

rial h

abita

t tha

t is

in

“sui

tabl

e” c

ondi

tion

for n

estin

g (e

.g.,

amou

nt o

f age

cla

ss 8

/ 9

that

is lo

cate

d in

pat

ch s

izes

of 2

00 h

a or

gre

ater

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

), C

CFM

C&

I

Ung

ulat

es

exis

tenc

e of

ung

ulat

e w

inte

r ran

ge

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

ent o

f lan

d ar

ea in

prim

ary

wat

ersh

eds

that

is re

tain

ed a

s un

gula

te w

inte

r ra

nge

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er is

land

), C

CFM

C&

I

Aqu

atic

Fau

na

dist

ribut

ion

and

abun

danc

e (C

ondi

tion)

ch

ange

ove

r tim

e in

the

dist

ribut

ion

and

abun

danc

e of

aqu

atic

faun

a at

fore

st

leve

l M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

V

iabi

lity

of

Sel

ecte

d S

peci

es

hist

oric

al ra

nge

in w

hich

spe

cies

are

ex

tirpa

ted

or d

eclin

ing

(Impa

ct)

perc

enta

ge o

f his

toric

al ra

nge

in w

hich

sel

ecte

d sp

ecie

s (c

arib

ou, s

harp

-taile

d gr

ouse

, mul

e/bl

ack-

taile

d de

er, m

oose

, griz

zly

bear

) are

ext

irpat

ed v

ersu

s de

clin

ing.

Als

o, “o

bser

ved

chan

ges

in fa

una”

(FS

C c

ertif

icat

ion)

Env

ironm

enta

l Tre

nds,

C

CFM

C&

I, FS

C fo

rest

ce

rtific

atio

n, M

odel

fore

st

mon

itorin

g

Pop

ulat

ions

po

pula

tions

of s

elec

ted

spec

ies

(Con

ditio

n)

trend

s in

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ates

for v

ario

us s

peci

es (e

.g.,

deer

, moo

se, c

arib

ou,

goat

s, w

olf,

furb

eare

rs, g

rizzl

y be

ars,

wat

erfo

wl,

harb

our s

eals

, sea

lion

s, k

iller

w

hale

s, s

ea o

tters

, etc

)

CC

FM C

&I,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)

W

ildlif

e hu

nter

/ tra

ppin

g ef

fort

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

hun

ter d

ays,

bag

leve

ls, f

urbe

arer

har

vest

s M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Page

78

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

Bus

ines

s an

d In

form

atio

n N

eeds

Stu

dy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

RES

OU

RC

E C

ATE

GO

RY

THEM

E EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IND

ICA

TOR

and

IN

DIC

ATO

R T

YPE

ASS

OC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

IN

TIA

TIVE

/ U

SER

Exp

loita

tion

E

xtirp

ated

/ E

xtin

ct F

ores

t-D

epen

dent

S

peci

es

extir

pate

d an

d ex

tinct

fore

st-d

epen

dent

sp

ecie

s (Im

pact

) nu

mbe

r of s

uch

spec

ies

Sta

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FM

C&

I

Soils

S

oil D

istu

rban

ce

soil

dist

urba

nce

in h

arve

sted

are

as

(Pre

ssur

e)

area

/ di

strib

utio

n of

soi

l dis

turb

ance

in a

reas

that

hav

e be

en s

ubje

ct to

ha

rves

ting,

by

year

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I

S

oil D

istu

rban

ce

soil

dist

urba

nce

by h

arve

st s

yste

m

(Pre

ssur

e)

perc

ent o

f soi

l dis

turb

ance

that

is a

ttrib

utab

le to

var

ious

har

vest

sys

tem

s S

tate

of F

ores

ts

S

oil D

istu

rban

ce

cons

truct

ion

of n

ew fo

rest

road

s (P

ress

ure)

le

ngth

of n

ew fo

rest

road

s co

nstru

cted

La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e., K

amlo

ops)

Land

slid

es

land

slid

e oc

curr

ence

s (Im

pact

) nu

mbe

r / a

rea

of n

atur

al v

ersu

s hu

man

cau

sed

land

slid

es

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring,

M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

S

oil P

rodu

ctiv

ity

prod

uctiv

e lo

sses

(Con

ditio

n)

m3/

ha/y

ear t

hat a

re e

stim

ated

to b

e lo

st to

pro

duct

ivity

, acc

ordi

ng to

var

ious

ha

rves

ting

syst

ems

Sta

te o

f For

ests

S

oil P

rodu

ctiv

ity

harv

estin

g im

pact

s on

soi

ls (I

mpa

ct)

perc

enta

ge o

f har

vest

ed a

rea

havi

ng s

igni

fican

t soi

l com

pact

ion,

di

spla

cem

ent,

eros

ion,

pud

ding

, los

s of

org

anic

mat

eria

l C

CFM

C&

I, FS

C fo

rest

ce

rtific

atio

n

Soi

l Res

tora

tion

soil

rest

orat

ion

in h

arve

sted

are

as

(Res

pons

e)

area

/ di

strib

utio

n of

soi

l res

tora

tion

in a

reas

that

hav

e be

en s

ubje

ct to

ha

rves

ting,

by

year

S

tate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C

&I

O

rgan

ic C

onte

nt

carb

on s

eque

stra

tion

/ rel

ease

, org

anic

co

nten

t in

soils

(Con

ditio

n)

amou

nt /

dist

ribut

ion

of o

rgan

ic c

onte

nt /

carb

on in

fore

st /

agric

ultu

ral s

oils

M

OF,

MA

A s

trate

gic

plan

ning

, Kyo

to p

roto

col

com

mitm

ents

Soi

l Fer

tility

so

il fe

rtilit

y pa

ram

eter

s (C

ondi

tion)

le

vels

/ di

strib

utio

n of

soi

l fer

tility

par

amet

ers

(e.g

., ac

idity

, cat

ion

exch

ange

) M

AA

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

EXPL

AN

ATO

RY

NO

TES

This

app

endi

x lis

ts th

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

nfor

mat

ion

that

age

ncie

s ne

ed, p

oten

tially

nee

d, o

r wou

ld li

ke to

hav

e to

impl

emen

t the

ir tre

nds

inte

rpre

tatio

n an

d / o

r effe

ctiv

enes

s re

porti

ng a

nd /

or s

trate

gic

plan

ning

initi

ativ

es.

This

app

endi

x w

as g

ener

ated

thro

ugh

stud

y in

terv

iew

s an

d re

fere

nce

to a

genc

ies’

doc

umen

tatio

n, in

clud

ing:

Pro

vinc

ial-l

evel

Env

ironm

enta

l Sus

tain

abili

ty:

1. S

tate

of E

nviro

nmen

t Rep

ort,

1993

, ME

LP a

nd E

nviro

nmen

t Can

ada

2. E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s R

epor

t 200

0, M

ELP

P

rovi

ncia

l-lev

el S

usta

inab

le F

ores

t Man

agem

ent:

3. C

anad

ian

Cou

ncil

of F

ores

t Min

iste

rs (C

CFM

), C

riter

ia a

nd In

dica

tors

(C&

I) fo

r Sus

tain

able

For

est M

anag

emen

t, 19

96

4. S

tate

of t

he F

ores

t in

Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a (R

epor

t Pro

posa

l), O

ctob

er 2

000,

MO

F Lo

cal-l

evel

Sus

tain

able

For

est M

anag

emen

t:

5. P

oten

tial L

ocal

Lev

el In

dica

tors

for M

cGre

gor M

odel

For

est,

Aug

ust 1

998

6. C

anad

ian

Sta

ndar

ds A

ssoc

iatio

n, F

ores

t Cer

tific

atio

n S

yste

m (C

SA

Z80

8-96

) Gui

danc

e D

ocum

ent f

or

7. D

raft

Sus

tain

able

For

est M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (C

SA

sys

tem

) for

Kam

loop

s TS

A

8. F

ores

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il Fo

rest

Cer

tific

atio

n S

yste

m, P

rinci

ples

and

Crit

eria

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:

B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n A

ssoc

iate

s In

c. &

Sus

tain

able

Vis

ions

Page

79

Land

/ R

esou

rce

Pla

n E

ffect

iven

ess

Mon

itorin

g:

9.

Stra

tegi

c La

nd U

se P

lan

Mon

itorin

g G

uide

lines

and

Pro

cedu

res,

200

0, L

UC

O

10.

Kam

loop

s LR

MP

Mon

itorin

g R

epor

t, 19

99, K

amlo

ops

IAM

C

11.

Mon

itorin

g Im

plem

enta

tion

and

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

Van

couv

er Is

land

Lan

d U

se P

lan,

Con

sulta

nt’s

Rep

ort,

Sep

tem

ber 2

000,

Van

couv

er Is

land

IAM

C

12.

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, D

raft

Mon

itorin

g In

dica

tors

, Jan

uary

, 200

1, M

OF

/ ME

LP

Pro

tect

ed A

rea

Sus

tain

abili

ty:

13.

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

rs fo

r Rep

ortin

g on

the

Sta

te o

f Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a’s

Par

ks, D

raft

Rep

ort,

Febr

uary

200

0, M

ELP

P

rovi

ncia

l Lan

d S

tatis

tics

14.

Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a La

nd S

tatis

tics,

199

6, M

ELP

Not

e th

at m

any

agen

cies

are

cur

rent

ly e

ngag

ed in

a p

roce

ss to

dev

elop

thei

r ind

icat

ors,

and

ass

ocia

ted

info

rmat

ion

/ dat

a re

quire

men

ts.

Ther

efor

e, m

any

of th

e in

form

atio

n re

quire

men

ts id

entif

ied

in th

is a

ppen

dix

shou

ld b

e re

gard

ed a

s te

ntat

ive

/ pre

limin

ary,

and

sub

ject

to c

hang

e. I

nitia

tives

that

are

cur

rent

ly u

nder

dev

elop

men

t and

for w

hich

fin

al m

onito

ring

indi

cato

rs a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal i

nfor

mat

ion

requ

irem

ents

hav

e no

t yet

bee

n es

tabl

ishe

d in

clud

e: B

C S

tate

of t

he F

ores

t mon

itorin

g / r

epor

ting,

Mod

el fo

rest

m

onito

ring,

all

stra

tegi

c la

nd u

se p

lan

effe

ctiv

enes

s m

onito

ring

initi

ativ

es o

ther

than

the

Kam

loop

s LR

MP

, lan

dsca

pe u

nit p

lan

mon

itorin

g, a

nd p

rovi

ncia

l Sta

te o

f the

Par

ks

mon

itorin

g. A

t the

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

leve

l, th

e Fo

rest

Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il ce

rtific

atio

n sy

stem

is p

rese

ntly

dev

elop

ing

perfo

rman

ce s

tand

ards

for B

C, h

owev

er, t

hese

are

no

t yet

fina

l. F

or C

SA

cer

tific

atio

n, e

ach

appl

ican

t dev

elop

s th

eir o

wn

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

thro

ugh

a pu

blic

par

ticip

atio

n pr

oces

s; th

eref

ore,

env

ironm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n ne

eds

for t

his

initi

ativ

e ca

nnot

be

fully

ant

icip

ated

.

Documents

Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study · Business and Information Needs Study Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions Page v Recommendation 1: Government